Lesividad upheld against TFA ruling that granted improper deductions to Banco BCTLesividad declarada contra resolución del TFA que reconoció deducciones improcedentes al Banco BCT

CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Office 04 Phone 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33 Email _______________________________________________________________________ FILE: 13-001793-1027-CA (File 14-001246-1027-CA consolidated) MATTER: ORDINARY PROCEEDING PLAINTIFFS: BANCO BCT, S.A.; THE STATE (Prosecutor Paula Azofeifa Chavarría) DEFENDANTS: THE STATE (Prosecutor Sandra Sánchez and Nombre5486) AND BANCO BCT, S.A.

No. 03-2020-V CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE COURT. SECTION FIVE. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. ANNEX A. Goicoechea, at one o'clock in the afternoon on January fourteenth, two thousand twenty.- Ordinary proceeding filed by BANCO BCT, S.A., legal identification number CED90996, whose Special Judicial Representatives are Nombre115094, identification number CED90997, Nombre115095, identification number CED90998, Nombre534, identification number CED90267 (folios 121 and 355 of the judicial file; images 1 through 8 of the brief received at the trial hearing on 12-10-2019, visible in the filings folder of the virtual file); against the STATE, whose representatives are Prosecutors Sandra Sánchez Nombre5486, identification number CED1123, and Paula Azofeifa Chavarría, identification number CED363, who, in turn, filed a lesividad proceeding against Banco BCT, S.A. (folios 82 and 319 of the judicial file).-

WHEREAS:

1.- The claims of Banco BCT, S.A. – which were established both at the preliminary hearing held on October 22, 2014, and at the oral and public trial hearing held on December 1, 2019 – seek a judgment declaring: "...1. The absolute nullity of the entire audit procedure conducted against my Client, such that the challenged administrative acts become absolutely null. We specifically challenge the following administrative acts: Transfer of Charges No. CED90999 issued by the Large Taxpayers Tax Administration; Resolution DT10R-058-08, issued at twelve o'clock on April thirtieth, two thousand eight, by the Large Taxpayers Administration of the DGT; Resolution TFA No. 114-2012, issued at eleven o'clock on March twelfth, two thousand twelve, by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Court. 2. In the alternative, and should the nullity claim concerning the administrative procedure conducted against my Client not succeed, I request a declaration of partial nullity of the following administrative acts, insofar as they contain adverse provisions against my Client: Resolution DT10R-058-08, issued at twelve o'clock on April thirtieth, two thousand eight, by the Large Taxpayers Administration of the DGT; Resolution TFA No. 114-2012, issued at eleven o'clock on March twelfth, two thousand twelve, by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Court. Consequently, that the legal situation of my Client be restored, holding that the returns for the audited periods were filed in accordance with the Legal System, and that the payments made for Income Tax were correct and in accordance with Law, without there being any basis for them to be varied or altered by the Administration. 3. In the alternative, and should the Court find no grounds for nullity in any of the actions challenged herein, I request that liability for lawful conduct and normal functioning of the State be declared, making it appropriate to request that, given the exceptional intensity of the injury and the small proportion of those affected, it be declared that there is no basis whatsoever for the imposition of interest and penalties related to the tax adjustments made in the challenged acts. 4. From the perspective of claims 1 and 2, I request that if the lawsuit is upheld, the State be ordered to pay costs, in accordance with Article 193 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code. 5. In accordance with Articles 46 subsection e), 60 subsection 3), 68 subsection 4), 90 subsection 2), 110, 145 subsection a) and concordant articles of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, the return of the amounts paid on April 2, 2014, is requested, plus their respective interest accrued from the moment of payment until the date of their effective return ..." (folios 76 and 77, 216 and 365; digital record of the preliminary hearing held on 10-22-2014 and the trial hearing held on 12-10-2019).

2.- The State's representative answered the lawsuit in the negative, raised the defense of Lack of Right; requested that all of the plaintiff's claims be rejected as unfounded; that the lawsuit filed against the State be dismissed, and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay both costs, as well as the interest that said sums may accrue from the finality of the judgment until their effective payment. Finally, she indicated that she waived the conciliation hearing (folios 84 through 118 of the judicial file).

3.- The State's claims – which were established at the preliminary hearing held on June 24, 2015 – are for a judgment declaring: "... 1. That the ruling of the Tax Administrative Court, First Chamber, No. 114-2012, issued at 11:00 on March 12, 2012, be declared null and void, as being contrary to Law and injurious to the public and economic interests of the State, only with respect to the revocation of the following adjustments: A) Income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies; B) Financial expenses associated with 'liquidity reserves'. 2. That it be declared that the resolution of the Directorate General of Taxation, Large Taxpayers Administration, No. DT10R-058-08, issued at 12:00 on April 30, 2008, is in accordance with Law with respect to the matters being challenged. 3. That in the event of opposition to this lawsuit, the personal and procedural costs of the litigation plus any eventual interest derived therefrom shall be borne by the defendant party…" (folios 286 and 357 verso of the judicial file; and digital record of the preliminary hearing held on 06-24-2015).

4.- The representative of Banco BCT, S.A. answered the lawsuit in the negative; raised the defense of lack of right; requested that the lawsuit filed by the State be denied in its entirety and that the State be ordered to pay both costs in this proceeding (folios 292 through 316 of the judicial file).

5.- The preliminary hearing corresponding to file 13-001793-1027-CA was held starting at 1:29 p.m. on October 22, 2013, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is added to the file in a special docket (folios 214 through 219 of the judicial file).

6.- That by resolution number 070-2014 issued at 3:06 p.m. on September 26, 2014, Section Five of the Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Court ordered: "...It is ordered to consolidate the proceeding processed under file No. 14-001246-1027-CA with the one processed under file No. 13-001793-1027-CA. Proceedings in the latter are suspended until the former reaches the same procedural stage, at which point the material joinder of the files shall proceed. A copy of this resolution must be added to file No. 14-001246-1027-CA…" (folios 253 through 254 of the judicial file).

7.- The preliminary hearing corresponding to file 14-001246-1027-CA was held at 1:35 p.m. on June 24, 2015, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is added to the file in a special docket (folios 357 through 358 of the judicial file).

8.- By resolution issued at 8:15 a.m. on July 28, 2015, Section V of the Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Court ordered: "...Proceed with the material joinder of file 14-001246-1027-CA to file 13-001793-1027-CA, as had been ordered in resolution 070-2014-V issued at three o'clock and six minutes in the afternoon on September twenty-sixth, two thousand fourteen. The processing of this proceeding is suspended until the Unconstitutionality Action being processed before the Constitutional Chamber under file No. 14-012592-0007-CO is resolved…" (folio 360 through 361 of the judicial file).

9.- That by decree issued at 2:15 p.m. on February 14, 2018, it was ordered: "...Given that the unconstitutionality action processed under file number 14-012592-0007-CO – which caused the suspension of proceedings in this ordinary proceeding – was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, through judgment number 2017-015495 issued at 11:40 a.m. on October 4, 2017, and its operative part was published in Judicial Bulletin numbers 201, 202, and 203 of October 25, 26, and 27, it is resolved: based on the trial scheduling calendar of this Section and without prejudice that – if possible – the parties will be duly notified of a closer hearing date, they are summoned in accordance with the provisions of Articles 99 and following of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, to the oral and public trial to be held in COURTROOM ONE of this Court, starting at EIGHT THIRTY IN THE MORNING ON DECEMBER 10, 13, AND 18, TWO THOUSAND NINETEEN…" (images 435 through 437 of the trial scheduling decree, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file).

10.- By resolution issued at 8:21 a.m. on December 2, 2019, the request raised by the representative of Banco BCT was resolved in the following manner: "...it is necessary to indicate that pursuant to the provisions of the decree scheduling the oral and public trial issued at 2:15 p.m. on February 14, 2018 (images 435 through 437 of the virtual file as of the date of this resolution), the parties and their witnesses were summoned to attend the hearing for all three days. This is because, while it is true that this is a complex proceeding – given that the lesividad claim filed by the State's representative was consolidated – in which there are 5 witnesses to be examined; it is also true that the development of the hearing is an aspect that cannot be predicted, as it depends on multiple factors related to the behavior of the parties during the proceeding; equipment operation; among other aspects. Therefore, it is necessary to have the presence of all admitted witnesses, so that they are available to render their testimony at the moment the Court so requires, unless there is a justified cause that prevents them from appearing from the first day for which they were summoned, which is not accredited in this case. In any event, it should be remembered that the decree scheduling the trial was notified to the representative of Banco BCT on February 14, 2018, while the reminder for the oral and public trial was notified on November 22, 2019; therefore, the necessary logistics for the plaintiff's witnesses to be able to respond to the Court's summons from the first day set for the trial hearing should have been anticipated by the banking entity with the due advance notice required by the case…" (images 1 through 2 of the resolution dated 12-02-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file).

11.- The oral and public trial hearing was held starting at 8:50 a.m. on December 10, 2019, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file. During this hearing, the Court accepted the withdrawal of the testimony of witnesses Nombre71895, Nombre115096, and Nombre113731; with the consent of both parties, opening arguments were dispensed with, and the time that was to be granted for that purpose was credited for use in the closing arguments phase; the remaining testimonial evidence admitted for Banco BCT and the State was examined; and subsequently, the representatives of the Bank and the State presented their closing arguments. At the conclusion, the Court verified the means of notification and indicated that the judgment would be issued in writing, within the fifteen-business-day period provided for in subsection 1) of Article 111 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, given that this is a complex proceeding and in calculating said period, the collective holiday closure – comprising December 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, and 31, 2019, and January 2 and 3, 2020 – approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in session number 86-19, article XLV, must be taken into consideration (see digital record of the oral and public trial hearing held on 12-10-2019).

12.- In the proceedings before this Court, no nullities have been observed that must be corrected or that cause defenselessness, and the judgment is issued within the period established in Article 111, subsection 1) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, which expires on January 14, 2020, given that the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in session number 86-19, article XLV, approved the collective holiday closure, comprising December 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, and 31, 2019, and January 2 and 3, 2020.- Judge Álvarez Molina writes, with the affirmative vote of Judge Sánchez Navarro and Judge Giusti Soto; and,

WHEREAS:

I.- PROVEN FACTS: The following facts, which are relevant to this proceeding, are deemed duly accredited: 1) That in a brief received on October 15, 2003, the Costa Rican Banking Association submitted to the General Superintendent of Financial Institutions a formal request for authorization for the calculation and recording of the non-deductible financial expense, non-deductible administrative expense, and the expense for non-deductible exchange rate differential of financial institutions. "...Accordingly, we request: A) That financial entities be authorized to calculate the non-deductible financial expense; non-deductible administrative expense, and the expense for non-deductible exchange rate differential, in accordance with the methodology detailed in the attached document, and to record them in memorandum accounts. B) Authorization to make the corresponding adjustments for the 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 periods, in accordance with the proposed methodology, and to record said adjustments in memorandum accounts. C) Authorization to allow the adjustment for the indicated periods to be charged against accumulated earnings…" (folios 68 and 69 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file); 2) By official letter SUGEF-4406-2003/09032 dated October 31, 2003, the General Superintendency of Financial Institutions stated regarding the request and the methodology of the Costa Rican Banking Association: "...Due to the fact that the accounting directives issued by this Superintendency do not permit the specific and precise association mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the implementation of a viable and verifiable model that allows determining the financial, operating, and exchange rate differential expenses associated with the resources constituting the liquidity surpluses maintained by entities would, to a large extent, address this need for information. In accordance with the procedures for obtaining the calculations indicated above and based on the implicit assumptions, we consider that the methods analyzed in this document constitute a viably applicable tool, which utilizes variables derived from provisions issued by this Superintendency and which, therefore, are susceptible to verification. Likewise, their nature is congruent with the ultimate objective of said methods; that is, to obtain data that allows the assets comprising the liquidity surplus maintained by entities to be associated with the costs or financial, administrative, and exchange rate differential expenses, and the income they generate that, on an estimated basis, can be attributed to them..." (folios 82 through 85 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file; highlighting is not from the original); 3) In official letter identified as ABC-264-2003 dated November 13, 2003, addressed to the Director General of Taxation, the Costa Rican Banking Association states, in summary: "... 3. The Association wishes to issue a recommendation to its members so that, based on the indicated methodology, the banks proceed to calculate and record the non-deductible financial expenses, the non-deductible administrative expenses, and the expense for non-deductible exchange rate differential. The foregoing will also necessarily lead them to have to amend the returns for the periods detailed. 4. Given the importance of the matter and the acts that its implementation entails, we wish to request that this Directorate issue a ruling confirming the appropriateness of the methodology that SUGEF has validated, as a suitable and correct means for calculating the non-deductible financial expenses, the non-deductible administrative expenses, and the expense for non-deductible exchange rate differential, so that the banks may proceed to make the corresponding calculations and records and thus comply with the provisions of Article 7 of the Income Tax Law and Article 11 of its Regulations. 5. We make the foregoing request based on Article 102 of the Tax Procedures Code…" (evidence docket of Report DFOE-IP-06/2005; highlighting is not from the original); 4) By official letter SUGEF 4634-2003 dated November 20, 2003, the General Superintendent of Financial Institutions forwarded to the National Council for Supervision of the Financial System the proposed amendment to the Chart of Accounts for Financial Institutions so that it could be sent for consultation to the financial system, stating that: "...The implementation of this amendment will allow supervised entities to have a tool for the control and recording of non-deductible expenses associated with income not subject to income tax…" (Evidence Docket of Report DFOE-IP-06-2005); 5) That the National Council for Supervision of the Financial System ordered, in Article 10 of the Minutes of Session 406-2003 of December 2, 2003, that the proposed amendment to the Chart of Accounts for financial institutions be sent for consultation to the entities, financial groups, and represented chambers of the financial sector (folios 120 through 125 of volume V of the "Determinative" administrative file); 6) That by official letter DGT-1659-003 dated December 2, 2003, the Director General of Taxation informed the Costa Rican Banking Association that: "...By this means, I am responding to your official letter ABC-0264-2003. We have reviewed the methodology proposed in the official letter dated October 15, 2003 and its annexes, and approved by the General Superintendency of Financial Institutions, in official letter SUGEF 4406-2003/09032, for calculating the non-deductible financial expense and the expense for non-deductible exchange rate differential. This office wishes to inform you that it considers the indicated methodology to be reasonable and correct for the purposes of calculating the non-deductible financial expense, the non-deductible administrative expenses, and the expense for non-deductible exchange rate differential of the banks of the national banking system…" (folio 86 of volume V of the "Determinative" administrative file; highlighting is not from the original); 7) That through official letter SUGEF 4796-200309032, dated December 2, 2003, addressed to the Costa Rican Banking Association, the Superintendent stated: "... we inform you that on November 27th last, this Superintendency submitted to CONASSIF a proposal to amend the Chart of Accounts for financial institutions to proceed with the opening of sub-accounts and analytical accounts that allow the recording and identification of non-taxable income and non-deductible expenses, used in the calculation of the income tax. Furthermore, regarding point 3 of your letter, requesting authorization for the accounting adjustments arising from the correction of income tax returns for prior periods to be made against accumulated earnings, we inform you that, in our opinion, this type of correction qualifies at the accounting level as a fundamental error. Consequently, and in accordance with the current Chart of Accounts for Financial Institutions, these adjustments must affect the accumulated earnings of prior years and, specifically, in the case at hand, account 352 'Accumulated losses from prior years…'" (folio 87 of volume V of the "Determinative" administrative file; highlighting is not from the original); 8) By official letter SUGEF 974-2004 dated March 15, 2004, the General Superintendent informed CONASSIF that: "...On the occasion of its consultation, the Costa Rican Banking Association noted that the inclusion of a memorandum account identifying 'Expenses for impairment of investments in securities and estimation of uncollectibility of the loan portfolio not deductible' does not correspond to the purpose of the amendment, as this is a deductible expense clearly identified in the income statement, account 420 'Expenses for impairment of investments in securities and estimation of uncollectibility of the loan portfolio.' This observation was evaluated and accepted by the Superintendency and constitutes the sole change to the project with respect to the original proposal. Therefore, we are submitting for your approval the reform project to the 'Chart of Accounts for Financial Institutions,' duly modified…" (evidence docket of Report DFOE-IP-06/2005); 9) By Official Letter CNS 269-04 dated April 13, 2004, the National Council for Supervision of the Financial System informed the General Superintendent of Financial Institutions that: "...1.- It agreed to amend the Chart of Accounts for Financial Institutions to add the sub-accounts and analytical accounts, in accordance with the following text (...). 2.- The amendments to the Chart of Accounts for Financial Institutions set forth in item 1 above shall take effect upon their publication in the Official Gazette 'La Gaceta'…"; which was published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta on April 21, 2004 (folios 125 through 126 of volume V of the "Determinative" administrative file; evidence docket of Report DFOE-IP-06/2005); 10) That by official letter number DGT-2351-2004 dated October 8, 2004, the Director General of Taxation responded to official letters FOE-IP-261 dated September 2 and FOE-IP-304 dated October 4, both 2004, sent by the Comptroller General of the Republic, at which time he indicated – insofar as relevant – that: "...once the methodology was approved by SUGEF, it was submitted for consultation to the Directorate General of Taxation, which approved it, on the basis that it had been approved by SUGEF, which is the technical body of the Public Administration competent to authorize the methodology for determining and accounting for the Banks' expenses. The Directorate General of Taxation ruled positively, also on the basis that the methodology complies with the requirements of the Tax Administrative Court and of this Directorate General of Taxation. Once the methodology was approved by the Directorate General of Taxation, the banks proceeded to correctly record their expenses for the periods not subject to audit and made the modifications and amendments to the tax returns. They likewise proceeded to make the corresponding payments for the amended periods…" (folios 13 through 15 of the judicial file; folios 71 and 134 of volume III of the administrative file "Worksheets"); 11) That the Comptroller General of the Republic sent several official letters to the Directorate General of Taxation, in order to gather the necessary information to carry out the corresponding analysis regarding the methodology of the Costa Rican Banking Association; official letters: 2101 dated February 23, 2005, FOE-IP-0059; 2229 dated February 25, 2005, FOE-IP-0065 (evidence docket of "Report DFOE-IP-06/2005"); 12) That the Directorate General of Taxation responded to the Comptroller's requests through official letters: GGC-067-2005 dated March 14, 2005 and DGT-369-2005 dated March 4, 2005 (evidence docket of "Report DFOE-IP-06/2005"); 13) Through official letters 2886 dated March 11, 2005, FOE-IP-0081; 3004 dated March 15, 2005, FOE-IP-0082; 3625 dated April 1, 2005, FOE-IP-0095; 3974 dated April 12, 2005, FOE-IP-0098; the Comptroller requested a series of information from SUGEF (evidence docket of "Report DFOE-IP-06/2005"); 14) By Official Letter SUGEF 1216-200502862 dated March 16, 2005, SUGEF sent the Comptroller General of the Republic official letter SUGEF 4338-2003/09032 dated October 24, 2003; in SUGEF 1292-200502937 dated April 7, 2005, it referred to official letter No. 3004 dated March 15, 2005; in SUGEF 1508-2005 dated April 15, 2005, it referred to official letter No. 3974 dated April 12, 2005 (evidence docket of "Report DFOE-IP-06/2005"); 15) That on June 16, 2005, the Operational and Evaluative Audit Division, Public Revenue Area of the Comptroller General of the Republic issued Report No. DFOE-IP-06/2005, entitled "Report of the Special Study Conducted at the Directorate General of Taxation," in which it issued the following orders: "... 4.1. To the Minister of Finance: a) Immediately undertake the pertinent actions to definitively determine whether the Methodology for the calculation and recording of non-deductible expenses, associated with non-taxable income of banking entities of the National Banking System, submitted for the consideration of the DGT and SUGEF, is consistent with the tax calculation base established in the Income Tax Law 7092, and also whether, based on the situations indicated regarding the resolutions of these latter entities, it is appropriate to render void what was resolved regarding the Methodology, and to issue any other resolution that may eventually be necessary, with the purpose of dimensioning its effects and adopting the appropriate actions. The actions undertaken must be coordinated with the General Superintendency of Financial Institutions and carried out with the assistance of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic when appropriate and according to its competencies, and regarding said actions, due process must be observed with respect to the financial entities of the National Banking System, as applicable. b) Carry out, within the framework of the Tax Administration's competencies and in accordance with audit programs and procedures, and in light of what is set forth in this report, the audit actions concerning the banking entities of the National Banking System, as appropriate. c) Issue the corresponding measures so that an administrative investigation is immediately conducted within that ministry regarding the events discussed in this report and any other situation related to this case. If appropriate, potential responsibilities and sanctions must be established, in accordance with the principles and procedures of due process, and all other pertinent legal measures must be adopted, including the referral of the present case to the Public Prosecutor's Office if appropriate. d) Issue the necessary directives so that, henceforth, in cases where applicable, the regulations, resolutions, or criteria issued by the Tax Administration, which pursuant to the legal system must be supported by legal, economic, and any other type of studies, are prepared by the specialized technical bodies of the Administration and recorded in the respective files. e) Issue the corresponding instructions so that a review is conducted of the regulations (decrees, regulations, resolutions, or criteria) pertaining to the non-taxable income and non-deductible expenses referred to in this report, for the purpose of making any adjustments that may eventually apply, all in accordance with the current tax legal framework. f) Inform this Comptroller General, within the next fifteen business days, of the measures adopted to comply with the orders contained in this report. That office must arrange what is necessary for the immediate compliance with said orders, as well as for it to carry out periodic follow-up to guarantee adequate and timely compliance therewith, and to ensure that the decisions and resolutions pertaining to each order are duly supported by the corresponding technical and legal criteria, and fully adjusted to the legal system. That office and this Comptroller must be kept periodically and duly informed of the actions taken in relation to the foregoing orders, until their full compliance. 4.2.

To the General Superintendent of Financial Entities. a) Adopt, in accordance with its powers, the actions that, eventually, may be pertinent, with respect to what was resolved by that superintendency in relation to the Methodology, in coordination with the Ministry of Finance and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, when applicable, with the corresponding observance of due process, if appropriate. b) Issue the corresponding measures so that an administrative investigation is immediately carried out in that Superintendency regarding the facts discussed in this report and any other situation related to this case. If applicable, any eventual liabilities and sanctions must be established, in accordance with the principles and procedures of due process, and all other pertinent legal measures must be adopted, including the referral of this case to the Public Prosecutor's Office, if appropriate. c) Immediately order the corresponding actions so that, henceforth, the regulations, resolutions, or criteria issued by that Superintendency, in accordance with the legal system, are coordinated with the Tax Administration, when applicable. d) Notify this Comptroller General's Office, within the next fifteen business days, of the measures adopted to comply with provision 4.2.a)…” (folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; the highlighting is not from the original); 16) In a brief received on July 5, 2005, the Costa Rican Banking Association proceeded to support before the Comptroller General of the Republic the ancillary appeal filed against Report No. DFOE-IP-06/2005 (evidentiary file of the “Report DFOE-IP-06/2005” and folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005); 17) By Official Letter 10763-CO-0581, resolution R-CO-R-87-2005, at 08:00 hours on September 2, 2005, the Comptroller General of the Republic ordered: \"...Based on the considerations set forth, the appeal and concomitant nullity plea filed by Mr. Nombre3850, in his capacity as president and legal representative of the Costa Rican Banking Association, directed against Report DFOE-IP-06/2005, issued by the Division of Operational and Evaluative Oversight, Public Revenue Area of this comptroller body, is rejected for lack of standing. The administrative channel is hereby exhausted” (evidentiary file of the “Report DFOE-IP-06/2005” and folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005); 18) By Interpretative Directive number DGT-16-05 of December 19, 2005, the Acting Director General of Taxation ordered -in what is relevant-: “…This directive renders void the criterion expressed in the official letter of the Directorate General of Taxation No. DGT-1659-03 of December 2, 2003, as well as any other criterion that opposes it totally or partially or that has been interpreted differently from what is set forth below…” (folios 88 to 91 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 19) By notice of findings number 275200016552 issued on November 13, 2007, by the Large Taxpayers Tax Administration of the DGT, it was indicated that, in accordance with the ex officio determination made, the tax obligation of Banco BCT is as follows:

This is because, the \"…Banco BCT S.A., filed amended Income Tax (Profit Tax) returns for the fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 (…), and the returns for the Income Tax (Profit Tax) periods for fiscal periods 2003, 2004 and 2005 (…) using a different methodology from the proportionality established in Article 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its Regulations, for the purpose of calculating non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income; said methodology is not accepted by the Tax Administration, as indicated below: (...) In accordance with reiterated rulings of the Administrative Tax Tribunal, among which is No. 201-2005 dated May 12, 2005, among others, it established that the proportion indicated in Article 7 of the Income Tax Law and Article 11 of its Regulations is a correct method for allocating expenses to non-taxable income and the only thing that would be questionable is that the variables affecting said proportion have not been determined correctly. Through report No. DFOE-IP-06/2005 of June 16, 2005, the COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC questioned the methodology used by banking entities, since it was not consistent with the provisions of Income Tax Law No. 7092, of April 21, 1988. Because said methodology does not associate non-deductible expenses with sources of non-taxable income, but rather with a so-called excess liquidity, which is determined by excluding securities with a term of more than one month and is multiplied by a significantly reduced financial cost rate, resulting in an underestimation of non-deductible expenses and consequently an overestimation of deductible expenses, which in turn underestimates net income. Through Directive No. 16-05 dated December 19, 2005, the Directorate General of Taxation nullified Official Letter No. DGT-1659-03 of December 2, 2003…\" (folios 1 to 9 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 20) By determinative resolution number DT10R-058-08 issued at 12:00 hours on April 30, 2008, by the Large Taxpayers Administration of the DGT, it was ordered: “… The challenge briefs, as well as the nullity incident, the defenses, and the motion for reconsideration with ancillary appeal before the Administrative Tax Tribunal, concomitantly filed by Mr. GERARDO ULLOA CASTRO, in his capacity as General Manager without sum limit of BANCO BCT SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, against the notice of findings and observations No. Identificacion614 corresponding, the first, to the Income Tax for Fiscal Periods 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 (…), are declared without merit. Consequently, an increase is determined with respect to what was declared for the sums of ¢97,540,626.00 (ninety-seven million five hundred forty thousand six hundred twenty-six colones and zero cents), ¢99,923,021.00, (ninety-nine million nine hundred twenty-three thousand six hundred twenty-one colones and zero cents), ¢108,779,953.00 (one hundred eight million seven hundred seventy-nine thousand nine hundred fifty-three colones and zero cents), ¢174,664,230.00 (one hundred seventy-four million six hundred sixty-four thousand two hundred thirty colones and zero cents), ¢233,139,234.00 (two hundred thirty-three million one hundred thirty-nine thousand two hundred thirty-four colones and zero cents), ¢89,575,289.00 (eighty-nine million five hundred seventy-five thousand two hundred eighty-nine colones and zero cents), and ¢103,793,249.00 (one hundred three million seven hundred ninety-three thousand two hundred forty-nine colones and zero cents), (…) for a total of ¢909,416,202.00 (nine hundred seven million four hundred sixteen thousand two hundred two colones and zero cents)…” (folios 142 to 225, 11 to 52 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 21) By resolution AU10R-076-08 also issued by the Large Taxpayers Administration, at 12:00 hours on June 3, 2008, it was ordered: “…The motion for reconsideration, as well as the nullity incident filed by Mr. GERARDO ULLOA CASTRO, in his capacity as General Manager without sum limit of BANCO BCT SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, against what was resolved by this Unit in resolution No. DT10R-058-08 of twelve o'clock on April thirtieth, two thousand eight, are declared without merit. The appeal before the Administrative Tax Tribunal is admitted…” (folios 237 to 263, 226 to 235 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 22) By interlocutory resolution INTER No. 084-2010 of 08:50 hours on April 28, 2010, the Administrative Tax Tribunal requested from SUGEF the following information related to Banco BCT: “…the amounts or quantities that the cited entity maintains in liquid assets or liquidity reserves that allow it to meet its obligations within the agreed terms in its ordinary financial intermediation activity. The foregoing is required in relation to fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. It is clarified that the foregoing request is regarding the referenced liquid assets and not the percentage corresponding to the legal reserve requirement (encaje legal) that is maintained as a mandatory reserve in the Banco Central de Costa Rica (…) It is requested, where relevant, and if possible, the reference both of the amounts allocated for the constitution of such liquid assets, in relation to the deposits from the public by the financial entity, and the representative percentage between said deposits and the constitution of such liquid assets…” (folios 325 to 327 of volume V of the \"determinative\" administrative file; the highlighting is not from the original); 23) In official letter SUGEF 2207-201004134 of July 8, 2010, the Directorate General of Technical Services of SUGEF indicated to the Investigating Judge of the Administrative Tax Tribunal that “…We refer to interlocutory resolution INTER No. 084-2010, received in this Superintendency on April 30, 2010, through which the following is requested in relation to the entity “Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima”: (…) In relation to the above, we allow ourselves to indicate that the requested information is not required by the Superintendency in the terms indicated in your letter. The 'Chart of accounts for entities, groups and financial conglomerates' establishes the accounting structure: classes, groups, accounts, subaccounts and analytical accounts, that financial intermediaries must use. According to the Chart of accounts, entities must classify their accounts in the following classes: 110 cash and cash equivalents (disponibilidades), 120 Investments in financial instruments, 130 Loan portfolio, 140 Accounts and commissions receivable, 150 Realizable assets, 160 Equity participations in other companies, 170 Real estate, furniture and equipment, 180 Other assets, 190 Investments in properties. Regarding class 110 'Cash and cash equivalents' (Disponibilidades), according to what the chart of accounts establishes, it 'comprises the assets that, due to their liquidity, have immediate availability. Therefore, cash, precious metals and remittances in transit, demand deposits and current accounts in the Banco Central de Costa Rica, financial entities of the country and abroad, and those documents for immediate collection are included' (...) On the other hand, regarding class 120 'Investments in Financial Instruments', the chart of accounts establishes in the concept of this account that it 'represents a contract that simultaneously gives rise to a financial asset in one entity and a financial liability or an equity instrument in another company or entity, which may or may not be incorporated in a document, which due to its own legal configuration and transfer regime can be traded in a financial market or a recognized and duly regulated stock exchange' (…) Once the above clarifications have been made, I am pleased to send you the balance of accounts 110, 120, 211, and 213, as of December 31 of the indicated years, as they were reported to this Superintendency by the respective entity.

(folios 334 to 336 of volume V of the \"determinative\" administrative file); 24) As a result of the request for information made by Banco BCT on November 4, 2011, SUGEF issued certification number SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 at 14:00 hours on January 25, 2012, a document in which it indicates that the data “…correspond to the accounting and financial information submitted by Banco BCT S.A. and Financiera Londres Ltda, to this Superintendency, and which is available in our databases for the periods between 1999 and 2002, both inclusive…” and that refers to “the balances of the requested accounting accounts, as well as the maturities at 3 months in national currency and foreign currency” (folios 342 to 346 of volume V of the \"determinative\" administrative file); 25) By writing dated February 22, 2012, the representative of Banco BCT presented before the Administrative Tax Tribunal, not only the copy of the certification issued by SUGEF on January 25, 2012, referred to in the preceding section, but also, based on said information, proceeded to determine the liquidity factor percentages for each of the audited fiscal years, dividing the total average 3-month maturities adjusted for volatility by the total average financial liability, obtaining the following result:

(folios 357 to 364 of volume V of the \"determinative\" administrative file); 26) By resolution number TFA-114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Tax Tribunal, at 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012, it was ordered: “…The filed nullity plea is declared without merit. The appealed resolution is revoked regarding the adjustments: (…) B) TAXABLE INCOME DECLARED AS NON-TAXABLE, (Interest income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies) (…). The appealed resolution is partially revoked regarding the adjustment for NON-DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH NON-TAXABLE INCOME AND DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH TAXABLE INCOME, and the percentages of 23.20% for 1999, 29.46% for 2000, 25.28% for 2001, 36.54% for 2002, 29.55% for 2003, 32.64% for 2004 and 35.87% for 2005 must be accepted as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income, for the concept of “financial interest expenses” for raising funds to constitute liquidity reserves, rejected by the Tax Administration. In all other respects, the appealed resolution is confirmed. The A Quo administration must proceed to liquidate and notify said act to the taxpayer in accordance with the provisions of Articles 40 and 163 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures…” (folios 1 to 52 of volume II of the determinative administrative file); 27) Resolution number TFA-114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Tax Tribunal, at 11:00 hours on March 30, 2012, was notified to the Directorate of Oversight of Large National Taxpayers of the Directorate General of Taxation, on October 31, 2011 (folio 432 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 28) Through resolutions number DGH-042-2012 of 11:30 hours on December 12, 2012; DGH-029-2013 of 15:33 hours on August 23, 2013; DGH-030-2013 of 15:35 hours on August 23, 2013 and DGH-031-2013 of 15:43 hours on August 23, 2013, the Directorate General of Finance ordered the forgiveness (condonación) of interest in favor of Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, Banco BAC San José, Banco Scotiabank de Costa Rica, S.A. and Banca Promérica, S.A., generated by the ex officio determinations made by the Sub-Management of Oversight of the Large Taxpayers Administration regarding the fiscal periods between 1992 and 2005 (images 123 to 149 of the judicial file); 29) By payment receipts dated April 2, 2014, Banco BCT S.A. paid the amounts determined by the Tax Administration, for the income tax corresponding to the fiscal periods between 1999 and 2005, given that -as indicated by one of the legal representatives of Banco BCT in the rectification stage of the oral and public trial hearing held on December 10, 2019 - the Tax Administration resolved to forgive Banco BCT the interest on said items (folios 226 to 231 of the judicial file; see digital backup of that proceeding contained in the associated documents folder of the virtual file); 30) By official letter DJMH-229-2013 of February 7, 2013, the Legal Directorate of the Ministry of Finance sent the recommendation for a declaration of partial harmfulness (declaratoria de lesividad) against resolution number TFA-114-2012 of the Administrative Tax Tribunal, based on the criterion issued by the Directorate General of Taxation, in official letter DGT-598-2012 of July 18, 2012 (folios 1 to 22 of volume VI of the administrative file); 31) By resolution number 139-2013 of February 22, 2013, the Minister of Finance declared the aforementioned pronouncement number TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012, issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Tax Tribunal in favor of Banco BCT, harmful to the fiscal and economic interests of the State (folios 23 to 34 of volume VI of the administrative file); 32) Both the liquidity reserve and the minimum legal reserve requirement correspond to an amount that must be "reserved" by financial intermediation institutions to guarantee their liquidity, and the difference between the two lies in which type of institution must hold one or the other (folios 325 and 326 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file; 30 and 31 of volume VI of the administrative file and the digital backup of the statement of expert witnesses Nombre115097 and Nombre3984, given at the trial hearing held on 12-10-2019, contained in the associated documents folder of the virtual file); 33) Maturity matching (calce de plazos) corresponds to a methodology to establish a minimum liquidity factor for financial entities, which allows them to meet their obligations within the agreed terms in the exercise of their ordinary activity, through liquid assets that generate both taxable and non-taxable income (either because they are not subject to income tax or because they are taxed with another tax) and therefore, they are not related from a technical point of view to the so-called liquidity reserve (digital backup of the statements of expert witnesses Nombre115097 and Nombre3984, given at the trial hearing of 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file); 34) For the fiscal periods between 1999 and 2002, Banco BCT did not keep an accounting system that allowed separating non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income, and deductible expenses associated with taxable income, while in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 it applied the so-called Nombre67376 methodology (see folios 71, 134 and 135 volume III of the administrative file, worksheets; 01, 05 and 06 of volume V of the \"determinative\" administrative file; digital backup of the statement of expert witness Nombre115097 given at the trial hearing of 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file); 35) The financial expenses for the minimum liquidity factor or the maturity matching related to the one- or three-month investments made by Banco BCT, were recognized by the Tax Administration when applying proportionality on the total financial expenses, after subtracting in each case the amount for the minimum legal reserve requirement (folios 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 81, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 148, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 170, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 202, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 212 in the upper right margin of volume I of the administrative file \"worksheets\"; 5 to 8 of volume V of the \"determinative\" administrative file; digital backup of the statement of expert witness Nombre3984 at the trial hearing of 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file); 36) SUGEF expressly stated that the methodology was not authorized for tax purposes but rather for accounting purposes (-see folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; evidentiary file of the \"Report DFOE-IP-06-2005-\"); 37) There is no act by the Tax Administration, in the terms of numeral 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures -in force at that date-, through which Banco BCT was expressly and directly authorized to use the Nombre67376 methodology and to rectify the returns for fiscal periods prior to 2003 based on it (it does not appear from folios 82 to 86 of volume V of the \"determinative\" administrative file; see folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; evidentiary file of the \"Report DFOE-IP-06-2005\"); 38) Banco BCT has been an active member of the Costa Rican Banking Association (ABC), since November 21, 1983 (folio 170 of the judicial file); 39) The lawsuit for harmfulness (lesividad) was filed by the representative of the State, on February 20, 2014 (folio 259 of the judicial file).- II.- FACTS NOT PROVEN. As relevant for the present process, the following are deemed not proven: a) That the income declared as non-taxable and that were considered by the Tax Administration within the determinative process as taxable, were not the product of a Costa Rican source and the ordinary business of the Bank, within the national territory (there is no evidence in the file); b) That Banco BCT, S.A., for the implementation of the methodology called ABC, carried out the procedure established in Article 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (There is no evidence in this regard in the case file); c) That the Tax Administration failed to comply with what was ordered in report DFOE-IP-06-2005, issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic (it does not appear from the evidence attached to the case file).

III.- OBJECT OF THE PROCESS. In the lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, S.A., it seeks a declaration of absolute nullity of the notice of findings; determinative resolutions, issued in the income tax audit procedure for periods between 1999 and 2005, as well as resolution 114-2012 issued by the TFA. In the alternative, it requests a declaration of partial nullity of the notice of findings; determinative resolutions, issued in the income tax audit procedure for periods between 1999 and 2005, as well as resolution 114-2012 issued by the TFA, in everything that is detrimental to its represented party. In the alternative, if it is deemed that there is no ground for nullity, the liability of the State for lawful conduct and abnormal functioning is declared, it being appropriate to request that, due to the exceptional intensity of the injury and the small proportion of those affected, it be declared that there is no basis whatsoever for the imposition of interest and fines related to the tax adjustments practiced in the questioned acts. Likewise, that the State be ordered to pay both sets of costs, in the event that any of the annulment claims are granted. Finally, it requests the refund of the amounts paid on April 2, 2014, plus their respective interest generated from the time of payment until the date of their effective refund. HARMFULNESS (LESIVIDAD): The nullity of the ruling of the Administrative Tax Tribunal, First Chamber, No. 114-2012, of 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012, is requested, for being contrary to law and harmful to the public and economic interests of the State, only insofar as it revokes the following adjustments: A) The income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies; B) Financial expenses associated with \"liquidity reserves\". This is because it considers that -in general terms- said formal conduct is contrary to the principles of legitimate expectation, good faith, legal certainty, intangibility of one's own acts; non-retroactivity; the provisions of Articles 10, 12 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System; 129 of the Organic Law of the Banco Central de Costa Rica; 136 of the General Law of Public Administration; 3 of Executive Decree number 28590-H and what was considered in judgment number 94-2013-V of 13:30 hours on September 26, 2013. For its part, in the lawsuit filed by the State, it requests the nullity of the ruling of the Administrative Tax Tribunal, First Chamber, No. 114-2012, of 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012, for being contrary to law and harmful to the public and economic interests of the State, only insofar as it revokes the following adjustments: A) The income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies; B) Financial expenses associated with \"liquidity reserves\". Specifically, insofar as the Tax Tribunal, despite expressly acknowledging in considering VIII that it shares all the arguments that allow the Tax Administration to apply the proportionality criterion to financial entities, regulated in Article 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its Regulations, illegally departs from such legal foundations and, in absolute contradiction with what was developed in considering VI), recognizes \" ... the deduction of a sum (different from that of the proportionality that was discussed in the previous considering, representative of those interests corresponding to the payment for bank deposits from the public's investments, and which in turn have been allocated or placed in temporary investments for the purposes of constituting liquidity reserves, as has been repeatedly resolved…\". Likewise, regarding the income obtained from operations and investments made with companies abroad, it maintains that the concept of territoriality is not limited to the physical-geographical nature, but rather responds to an idea of an economic order, which cannot be separated from the income-generating activity, since it is closely linked to the economic structure of the active subject, regardless of the origin or source of the monies used in the businesses and services, and whether these are habitual or occasional. Consequently, it maintains that what the Tax Administration taxes with the income tax is precisely that income obtained from investments abroad, which were forged with Costa Rican capital and by virtue of the financial intermediation activity carried out by the banking entity, an activity that is managed entirely within Costa Rican territory, is linked and connected to the economic structure of our country, therefore being Costa Rican-source income that must pay the corresponding tax.

IV.- PREREQUISITES FOR THE HARMFULNESS (LESIVIDAD) PROCESS. In this case, the State seeks a declaration of nullity of resolution number 114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Tax Tribunal, First Chamber at 11:00 hours on March 12, 2011, for being contrary to law and harmful to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, only with regard to the revocation of what was resolved by the then Large Taxpayers Tax Administration, regarding the following adjustments: i) For Non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income: financial expenses associated with liquidity reserves; b) For Taxable income declared as non-taxable (interest income obtained from operations and investments made abroad). From this point, it is necessary, briefly, to establish compliance with the various prerequisites imposed by the legal system for filing a harmfulness (lesividad) process, since the absence of one of these elements would bar and make the substantive examination unnecessary. In general, harmfulness (lesividad) constitutes a jurisdictional mechanism by virtue of which the Administration seeks the suppression of one of its own acts, which in principle generates a favorable effect for a third-party recipient. From this perspective, in this type of dispute, harmfulness (lesividad) is of a subjective nature, as it seeks the annulment of conduct that grants a right or, in general, a situation of benefit to a person.

This figure is enshrined in canon 34 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, a norm that sets forth the preliminary elements and procedural regulations of this figure. However, it is also referenced in numeral 173 of the General Law of Public Administration. From the perspective of procedural prerequisites, subjective, objective, procedural, and temporal conditions are imposed. Regarding the subjective aspect, active legal standing (legitimación activa) is granted to the Administration that issued the challenged act, while the passive legal standing (legitimado pasivo) belongs to the recipient of the conduct's effects, that is, whoever obtains its benefits. With respect to the objective aspect, the action for declaration of harmfulness (lesividad) is constituted as a mechanism for the legal elimination of administrative acts that are substantially non-conforming with the legal system, that is, acts that suffer from some level of invalidity, whether absolute or relative, in any of its typologies (articles 128, 158, 165 and concordant articles of the aforementioned General Law No. 6227). In this line, the Administration must declare that conduct harmful to the public interests, which must be established within a framework of internal administrative actions that are essential for filing the action. Indeed, in the procedural order, it is required that the supreme maximum head of the respective Public Administration declare the harmfulness of the act, whether for injury to economic, fiscal, or other interests arising from the public interest, for which purpose, they must have a supporting technical-legal criterion that underpins that determination. Unlike other figures for the suppression of public conduct, it does not require a hearing for the third party, but only internal actions within the Administration, it being within the judicial process that the third party can present their defense arguments. That said, when the act emanates from the State (see article 1 of the aforementioned General Law), that is, from the Central Administration, the lawsuit can only be brought by the Procuraduría General de la República (canon 16 of Law No. Placa494), upon prior request from the supreme maximum head and prior internal declaration of harmfulness, detailing the grounds for that criterion. As for the temporal dimension, the procedural regulations establish a period of one year counted from the issuance of the act (not from its communication) to declare it harmful to public interests, and after that declaration (and not from the expiration of that first year), a one-year period is granted to file the contentious-administrative action as a fatal statute of limitations (plazo fatal de caducidad), except in cases of acts with absolute nullity, in which case, the declaration of harmfulness can be made as long as its effects persist, with the aforementioned year running from the definitive cessation of said effects. Under that hypothesis, any eventual favorable judgment will provide for the nullity solely for the future inapplicability of the act, constituting an express exception to the regime of retroactivity of absolute nullities established by ordinal 171 of the General Law of Public Administration. The exception to this one-year temporal aspect is configured in the protection of public domain, in which case the action for declaration of harmfulness is not subject to any deadline due to the application of the general clause of imprescriptibility of this type of assets, as derived from canon 261 of the Civil Code. That said, in tax matters, the action for expiration (acción de caducidad), in addition to the referenced norms, is regulated in article 165 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (in force at that time). In this fiscal matter, pursuant to canon 41 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, the maximum deadline to initiate the process will be the same as the statute of limitations period imposed by the legal system for the respective substantive right, that is, 3 or 5 years (numeral 51 of the Tax Code, in force at that time) for assessment powers and 4 years for sanctioning matters (precept 71 ibidem, version in force at that time). Coupled with this, in this fiscal dynamic, since the natural head is barred from the power to review the conduct of lower-ranking Tax Administrations (numeral 102 subsections b and d of Law No. 6227), a competence that has been granted by legal imperative to the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, as derived from ordinal 156 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (in force at that time), constituting in that appellate phase a single-phase improper hierarchy (non-hierarchical control), it is clear that the deadline to declare the harmfulness that runs against the Minister of the Finance portfolio (a competence that is based on the fact that they hold the condition of supreme maximum head of both the reviewed body and the non-hierarchical controller, both being part of the same structure of that Administration), is computed from the moment that this single-phase improper controlling body brings to the attention of the lower-ranking Administration (A quo) what was resolved by virtue of its appellate competence. Prior to that moment, the natural head finds themselves materially and legally unable to become aware of an act that could be potentially harmful to the fiscal, economic, or public interests they must protect and, consequently, incapable of exercising their powers to declare that action harmful. Of course, when the act deemed irregular derives from a lower-ranking administration, not being in the aforementioned situation of a single-phase improper hierarchy, such exceptionality is not applicable, and the deadline is computed from the adoption of the act. In the present case, from the analysis of the case file, it is concluded that the internal declaration of harmfulness meets the indicated prerequisites. As has been established, resolution number TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, which is requested to be declared partially null, was communicated to the Dirección de Fiscalización de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales of the Dirección General de Tributación on March 20, 2012 (folios 372 to 432 of volume V of the administrative file "Determinativo"). Likewise, in official communication DJMH-229-2013 of February 7, 2013, the Dirección Jurídica of the Ministerio de Hacienda forwarded the recommendation for partial declaration of harmfulness against resolution number TFA-114-2012 of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, based on the criterion issued by the Dirección General de Tributación, in official communication DGT-598-2012 of July 18, 2012 (folios 1 to 22 of volume VI of the administrative file). Based on said technical-legal criterion, by resolution number 139-2013 of February 22, 2013, the Minister of Hacienda declared the aforementioned pronouncement number TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, issued by the First Chamber of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo in favor of Banco BCT, harmful to the fiscal and economic interests of the State (folios 23 to 34 of volume VI of the administrative file). As can be observed, that declaration of harmfulness was issued within the year following when the single-phase improper controlling body brought to the attention of the lower-ranking Administration (A quo) what was resolved by virtue of its appellate competence. From that moment, that is, March 20, 2012, the natural head was in the material and legal possibility of becoming aware of an act that could be potentially harmful to the fiscal, economic, or public interests they must protect and, consequently, capable of exercising their powers to declare that formal conduct harmful—solely insofar as it recognized as deductible expenses (gastos deducibles) those financial ones associated with liquidity reserves (reservas de liquidez), and for revoking what was decided by the lower body regarding income obtained from operations and investments carried out with foreign companies—as they definitively did by issuing resolution 114-2012 of March 12, 2012. Finally, the lawsuit that is the subject of this process was filed on February 20, 2014, that is, within the year following the administrative declaration of harmfulness (folio 259 of the judicial file). Furthermore, the lawsuit is brought by the Procuraduría General de la República against the banking institution that benefits from the partially challenged act, so that, in terms of both active and passive legal standing, the referenced requirements are met. Lastly and contrary to what the representatives of Banco BCT maintain, the resolution by which the Minister of Hacienda declared pronouncement number TFA-114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo harmful to the economic and fiscal interests of the State is not contrary to the provisions of article 136 of the General Law of Public Administration, as is clear from the following partial transcription of that act: "…it is inappropriate to recognize FOR THE TAXPAYER Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima, the income obtained through operations and investments abroad with capital generated in the national territory, as part of its activity, which is managed and developed within the national territory, so that the income generated by said investments are not capitals located outside the national territory but rather constitute monetary sums generated through the intermediation activity that it carries out in Costa Rica (…) In the present matter, the taxpayer Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima is obligated to build (sic) the reserve for the concept of minimum legal reserve requirement (encaje mínimo legal), but is not obligated to constitute the liquidity reserve, as established by the Banco Central de Costa Rica (…) This being the case, having clearly established that the minimum legal reserve requirement and the liquidity reserve are not synonyms, this Office considers that with the interpretation by the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo of considering both figures to be the same, the expense for the same concept would be duplicated…" (folios 22 to 35 of volume VI of the administrative file). Consequently, the fact that the defendant entity does not agree with the basis used by the Minister of Hacienda to support their decision to partially declare resolution TFA 114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo harmful, does not imply that a violation of the provisions of numeral 136 of the General Law of Public Administration is configured. This being so, we proceed below to the examination of the present action.

Vo.- REGARDING THE FINANCIAL EXPENSES FOR LIQUIDITY RESERVES RECOGNIZED BY THE TRIBUNAL FISCAL ADMINISTRATIVO IN FAVOR OF BANCO POPULAR Y DE DESARROLLO COMUNAL. This Court resolves as follows: a) The erroneous use of the term liquidity reserve as a synonym for minimum liquidity factor, as support for the decision adopted by the TFA. In the first instance and based on numerals 62 and 117 of the Organic Law of the Banco Central de Costa Rica, as well as on the documents visible on folios 325 and 326 of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo"; 30 and 31 of volume VI of the administrative file and on the declaration of expert witnesses Nombre115097 and Nombre3984 - see digital recording of the trial hearing held on 12-10-2019, which is contained in the associated documents folder of the virtual file -, this collegiate body considers that both the liquidity reserve and the minimum legal reserve requirement correspond to an amount that must be "reserved" by financial intermediation institutions to guarantee their liquidity, and that the difference between the two lies in which type of institution must keep one or the other, so that, technically, a Bank could not be obligated to maintain both the minimum legal reserve requirement and the liquidity reserve, at least not the one understood in accordance with the provisions of numeral 117 of the Organic Law of the Banco Central. In the same sense, this Court considers that maturity matching (calce de plazos) corresponds to a methodology to establish a minimum liquidity factor for financial entities, which allows them to meet their obligations within the deadlines agreed upon in the exercise of their ordinary activity, through liquid assets that generate both taxable and non-taxable income (whether because they are not affected by income tax or because they are taxed with another tax) and that therefore, they bear no relation from a technical point of view with the so-called liquidity reserve (digital recording of the declarations of expert witnesses Nombre115097 and Nombre3984, rendered at the trial hearing of 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file). Based on the foregoing, it is considered that Considerando IX of resolution TFA-114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, titled "Liquidity Reserve", is contradictory to what was stated by that same body in Considerando VIII of that same pronouncement, regarding the analysis it carries out on the issue of proportionality, and its application as established in numerals 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its Regulations (see folios 401 to 430 of volume V of the administrative file "Determinativo"). This is because, in Considerando VIII related to the "Application of the Proportionality Criterion and Consequent Rejection of Expenses Associated with Non-Taxable Income", the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo held - in what is relevant - that "…It must be emphasized that what was applied was appropriate, since all costs and expenses according to financial statements were used indistinctly to produce taxable and non-taxable income with profit tax and therefore such expenses reported by the audited entity cannot be applied solely to taxable income, but rather, to the entirety of the income obtained in the fiscal periods under study, since it is evident that the total business-operational structure (technical, professional and administrative) contemplates the planning, coordination, execution and control of all business activities and functions, aimed at achieving taxable and non-taxable income…" (folio 411 of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo"; the highlighting is not from the original); however, in Considerando IX called "Liquidity Reserves", the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo held that "… must be admitted and has been admitted, the deduction of a sum (different from that of the proportionality that was addressed in the previous considerando), representative of those interests corresponding to the payment for bank deposits from public investments, and that at the same time have been arranged or placed in temporary investments for the purpose of forming liquidity reserves (…) In accordance with what has been set forth herein and in relation to the topic of the constitution of liquidity reserves and their generation of related financial expenses, and admitting as suitable and legal documentary evidence for the purpose of determining the admissible percentages to accept as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income, and having reviewed the calculations made by the audited entity, the appropriate course is to admit the percentages of 23.20%, 29.46%, 25.28%, 36.54%, 29.55%, 32.64% and 35.87%, in accordance with the information certified by the Super Intendencia General de Entidades Financieras…" (folios 425 to 429 of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo"). Without prejudice to the fact that this contradiction becomes apparent again, when it is estimated in the final part of that same Considerando IX, that "… The arguments related to the present aspect regarding the constitution of liquidity reserves should not be applied to the taxpayer's claims in the sense that it be equally admitted in relation to the other operating and administrative expenses incurred in the audited fiscal periods, since what is admitted under said concept is solely and by way of exception, regarding the interests related to the constitution of such liquidity reserves, as has been extensively set forth in the present resolution, in addition to the fact that admitting such claims would violate the figure of proportionality applied in the case file and would admit, in contravention of what the law provides for this type of taxpayer, the application of accrual income whereby it is indeed possible to deduct all expenses related to taxable income…" (folio 429 verso of volume VI of the administrative file "determinativo"). Furthermore, said non-hierarchical single-phase controller of legality also incurs a technical imprecision, as it is evident that it uses the terms liquidity reserve and minimum legal reserve requirement as if they were the same concept, since it even maintains that "…all arguments of this Court regarding the admissibility of those financial expenses related to the constitution of liquidity reserves are based on the same tax principles that the administration has used for the purposes of the minimum legal reserve requirement…" (folio 428 verso of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo"), an assertion that would be acceptable only if the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo were referring to the liquidity reserve that must be maintained by those financial intermediation entities not obligated to maintain the immobilized funds of the minimum legal reserve requirement; but the truth is that in the present case, it refers to maturity matching or the minimum liquidity factor, which is not the same as a liquidity reserve. This collegiate body considers that a technical imprecision of this nature cannot be overlooked, even less so when dealing with the administrative body that, due to the nature of the function it performs (non-hierarchical single-phase controller of legality in tax matters), is obligated to be technically and conceptually precise. Consequently, the discussion about whether or not it is appropriate to recognize, as deductible expenses, the minimum liquidity factor or the maturity matching related to one- or three-month investments made by Banco BCT from an excess of liquidity, and whether said recognition must be carried out through the proportionality established by articles 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its regulations, lacks interest in principle, since the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo does not refer to those points but rather to the liquidity reserve; without prejudice to the fact that said body also omitted to indicate in its resolution whether the minimum liquidity factor or the maturity matching were or were not contemplated in the assumptions to which the Tax Administration had already applied proportionality (see in a similar sense, judgments number 95-2009-V of 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019 and 103-2019-V of 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019, issued by the Fifth Section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda). b) On the scope of judgment 94-2013-V in the specific case. Without prejudice to the foregoing section and given the arguments raised by the representative of Banco BCT, this Court deems it necessary to determine the scope of judgment 94-2013-V issued at 1:30 p.m. on September 26, 2013 by Section V of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, and from that, to establish whether or not it is applicable in the present case. In that sense, as the legal representatives of Banco BCT affirm, said pronouncement states that "…there exists a series of norms and principles that govern the financial intermediation activity, so the examination of the issue requires an integral treatment in accordance with the fulfillment of one of the objectives of the Banco Central de Costa Rica, which is the promotion 'of a stable, efficient and competitive financial intermediation system.' (article 2 of Law 7558). With the purpose of fulfilling this objective, the concerned Administration has established a series of regulations in order to control the operation and oversight of financial entities and to promote favorable conditions to strengthen the liquidity and solvency of the financial system. In this line, these entities are subjected to supervision by the Superintendencia de Entidades Financieras, which has among its competencies that of overseeing their actions, always under the guiding principle that they must maintain a high level of solvency and a low level of risk, thereby strengthening the liquidity and stability of the intermediation system. Hence, a series of regulations are issued whose purpose is to ensure that financial entities adjust to certain efficiency parameters. One of these normative provisions is precisely Acuerdo SUGEF-24-00, approved by the Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero through article 8 of the minutes of session number 197-2000, held on December eleventh, two thousand, in which the Reglamento para Juzgar la Situación Económica-Financiera de las Entidades Fiscalizadas was approved. Said regulatory body defines six different types of risks: solvency risk, liquidity risk, interest rate fluctuation risk, exchange rate risk, credit risk and operational risk. When referring to liquidity risk, it indicates that it 'Arises when the financial entity does not possess the necessary liquid resources to meet its liabilities or obligations to third parties in the short term.' From the content of this definition, as well as from the objectives of the Banco Central de Costa Rica previously outlined, it is clearly inferred that companies or entities engaged in financial intermediation activity are obliged to maintain a minimum of liquidity, since only this allows for a stable financial system, as otherwise the risk level would increase. This is even more evident if one takes into consideration that one of the elements taken into account by the Superintendencia when judging the economic-financial situation of entities is precisely liquidity (…) It is then an obligation that also enables its operation, since otherwise, the entity would be exposed to a negative rating by the Superintendencia, and an abnormal operation of the entity would occur. Thus, since liquidity is an essential operating rule in this type of entity, it is clear to this Decision-making Body that the costs implied by compliance with this obligation are constituted as useful and necessary to generate taxable income, and therefore translate into deductible expenses, pursuant to the provisions of articles 1, 7, 8 and 14 of the Income Tax Law…" (the highlighting is not from the original). That said, in that same judgment, it is indicated that "…Articles 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its Regulations provide for the treatment to be given to cases in which taxpayers, when developing a lucrative activity, generate taxed and non-taxed income and expenses associated with both types of income. This is relevant if we recall that pursuant to articles 7 and 14 of Law No. 7092, taxable income is the net income of taxpayers, that is, 'the result of deducting from gross income the useful, necessary and pertinent costs and expenses to produce the profit or benefit, and the other disbursements expressly authorized by this law, duly supported by receipts and recorded in the accounting', from which it follows that expenses linked to non-taxed income cannot be deducted, and that for disbursements linked to taxed activities but that are also associated with non-taxed activities, the deduction must be made proportionally. The legal system allows the taxpayer to establish that proportion, however, when, as in this case, the system used by the taxpayer is not reliable, it is up to the Administration to apply the system established in the legal system. In this sense, the final paragraph of article 7 of Law No. 7092 provides: 'Article 7.- (...) When the authorized costs, expenses or disbursements are incurred to produce indistinctly taxed or exempt income, only the proportion corresponding to the taxed income must be deducted.' And for its part, the first paragraph of article 11 of the Regulations establishes: 'Article 11.- Income is determined by deducting from gross income the useful, necessary and pertinent costs and expenses permitted by law. When expenses, costs and disbursements are incurred to produce indistinctly taxed and exempt income, only the proportion corresponding to the taxed income must be deducted. When the taxpayer cannot duly justify a different proportion, they must deduct the sum resulting from applying the percentage obtained by relating the taxed income to the total income.' Consequently, this collegiate body considers that the application of the proportionality system carried out is appropriate and in accordance with the provisions of the Law and its Regulations, where it is clearly established that in those cases in which the taxpayer has disbursements linked to taxed and non-taxed income, and cannot adequately justify a proportion different from that established in the legal system, the formula provided for this purpose shall be applied…" (the highlighting is not from the original). Consequently, while it is true that the Tax Administration could recognize expenses related to compliance with the minimum liquidity factor in a different proportion from that established in the final part of article 11 of the Regulations to the Income Tax Law; it is also true that those expenses must be duly justified in the accounting records of the taxpayer, in order to determine which are the non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxed income and which correspond to deductible expenses associated with taxed income, which is essential in those assumptions - such as the one before us - in which Banco BCT has produced indistinctly taxed or exempt income. The foregoing acquires relevance in the specific case, since in this type of tax, it is the taxpayer itself that, through its declaration, determines the amount to be paid for the said tax. However, within the framework of the liquidation of a tax obligation such as the one under examination, the Tax Administration proceeds to verify the data in order to confirm the elements of the rendered declaration with the data held by the taxpayer, and it is upon the latter that the burden of proof falls for those facts related to the reduction of the taxable base. Such is the meaning of the provisions established in numerals 128 and 140 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures, 19 of the Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria, Decreto Ejecutivo número 29264 of January twenty-first, 2001 (all in force at that time). Article 19 of the referred regulation expressly indicated that: "…The burden of proof falls upon the Tax Administration regarding the constitutive facts of the tax obligation, while it falls upon the taxpayer, responsible party or declarant regarding the impeding, modifying or extinguishing facts of the tax obligation. In this sense, it shall be up to the latter, as the case may be, to demonstrate the facts that configure their costs, expenses, liabilities, tax credits, exemptions, non-subjections, discounts and in general the tax benefits they allege exist in their favor." Thus, the validity of the self-assessment carried out by the taxpayer regarding non-deductible expenses, associated with non-taxable income, and consequently of the deductible expenses associated with taxable income, is subject to verification, and it is up to the taxpayer, in this case Banco BCT, to prove the accuracy of the self-assessed amount, which must be demonstrated through the accounting system of said banking entity, a system that, necessarily, must conform to generally accepted accounting principles, pursuant to the provisions of precept 57 of the Regulations to the Income Tax Law, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 18445-H, which should clearly reflect the amount of non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income. Without prejudice, of course, to the modifications to the Plan de Cuentas para Entidades Financieras published in La Gaceta number 77 of Wednesday, April 21, 2004, a document according to which account code number 819 is added, allowing for the control and identification of non-deductible expenses associated with income not subject to Income Tax payment (folios 125 and 126 of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo").

In this case, it is taken as accredited that Banco BCT, for the fiscal periods between 1999 and 2002, did not maintain an accounting system that would allow for the separation of non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income, and deductible expenses associated with taxable income, while in the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 it applied the so-called Nombre67376 methodology (see folios 71, 134, and 135 of volume III of the administrative record "work papers"; 01, 05, and 06 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative record; digital backup of the expert witness testimony of Nombre115097 given at the trial hearing of 10-12-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual record); extremes that, in any case, are accepted by the banking entity itself, both in a brief of May 8, 2007, by stating: “…For the calculation of expenses associated with non-taxable income in the amended Income Tax returns for fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and for fiscal periods 2003, 2004, and 2005, the methodology agreed upon by the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense was used…” as in a memorial of December 5, 2006, by indicating: “… Year 2004 and Year 2005. The methodology agreed upon by the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense in 2003 was used for the calculation of financial expenses, administrative expenses, and the expense for exchange rate differential (…) Year 2003. It was calculated with the excess liquidity determined through the maturity matching balances at a one-month term, deducting from the reserve requirement account balances the balance of loans to state banks, adjusted for the volatility of daily current account balances (…) Years 2002, 2001, 2000, and 1999. Expenses associated with non-taxable income were not calculated…” (folios 71, 134, and 135 of volume III of the administrative record "work papers"; highlighting is from the original). In this way, given the omission by Banco BCT of having a methodology in accordance with the parameters required by the legal system, that is, one that has the support to clearly determine all the expenditures linked to non-taxable income, and therefore those linked to taxable income, during the fiscal periods between 1999 and 2005, the concerned Administration was forced to apply the questioned system provided for in numerals 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its Regulations, for those taxpayers who indistinctly generate income taxable or not by said tax. In other words, although the legal system allows the taxpayer to establish that proportion—specifically regarding expenses for meeting the minimum liquidity factor and maturity matching, which is what matters in the specific case—when the system used by the taxpayer is not reliable—as in this case—it is the Administration's responsibility to apply the system established in the legal system. In addition to the above, it is evident from the "work papers" and the statement of charges that the financial expenses for the minimum liquidity factor or the maturity matching related to the one- or three-month investments made by Banco BCT were recognized by the Tax Administration by applying proportionality to the total financial expenses, after subtracting in each case the amount for the minimum legal reserve requirement, an aspect that the Tax Administrative Court omitted to refer to in the challenged resolution, and which ultimately caused it to make a double allocation of expenses for the same concept (folios 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 81, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 148, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 170, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 202, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, and 212 in the upper right margin of volume I of the administrative record "work papers"; 5 to 8 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative record; digital backup of the expert witness testimony of Nombre3984 at the trial hearing of 10-12-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual record). For this reason, the arguments raised by Banco BCT, in the sense that the accounting it presented in the audit procedure was not assessed by the Tax Administration, lack support.

• c)Regarding Official Letter number SUGEF 2207-201004134 of July 8, 2010, and certification SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883. In the first instance, it is necessary to clarify that contrary to what was indicated by the Tax Administrative Court in recital IX of resolution 114-2012, certification number SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 issued by SUGEF at 2:00 p.m. on January 25, 2012, is not the document through which said Superintendency answered the request for information made by the Tax Administrative Court through interlocutory resolution number 084-2010 of 8:50 a.m. on April 28, 2010 (folios 325 to 327 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative record). The foregoing acquires relevance in the specific case, for the reasons set forth below:
• i)By interlocutory resolution INTER N° 084-2010 of 8:50 a.m. on April 28, 2010, the Tax Administrative Court requested from SUGEF the following information related to Banco BCT: “…the amounts or quantities that the cited entity maintains in liquid assets or liquidity reserves, which allow it to meet its obligations within the agreed terms in its ordinary financial intermediation activity. The foregoing is required in relation to fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. It is clarified that the previous request is regarding the reference liquid assets and not the percentage corresponding to the legal reserve requirement that is maintained as a mandatory reserve in the Banco Central de Costa Rica (…) It is requested, where relevant, if possible, the reference both of the amounts allocated for the constitution of such liquid assets, in relation to the public's deposits by the financial entity, and the representative percentage between said deposits and the constitution of such liquid assets…” (folios 325 to 327 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative record; highlighting is not from the original); ii) In official letter SUGEF 2207-201004134 of July 8, 2010, the Dirección General de Servicios Técnicos of SUGEF indicated to the Investigating Judge of the Tax Administrative Court that “…We refer to interlocutory resolution INTER N° 084-2010, received by this Superintendency on April 30, 2010, through which the following is requested in relation to the entity “Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima”: (…) In relation to the above, we are permitted to indicate that the requested information is not required by the Superintendency in the terms indicated in your official letter. The 'Chart of accounts for entities, groups, and financial conglomerates' establishes the accounting structure: classes, groups, accounts, sub-accounts, and analytical accounts, which financial intermediaries must use. According to the Chart of accounts, entities must classify their accounts into the following classes: 110 availabilities, 120 Investments in financial instruments, 130 Loan portfolio, 140 Accounts and commissions receivable, 150 Realizable assets, 160 Participation in the capital of other companies, 170 Furniture and equipment property, 180 Other assets, 190 Investments in properties. Regarding class 110 'Availabilities', in accordance with what the chart of accounts establishes, it 'comprises assets that, due to their liquidity, have immediate availability. Therefore, cash, precious metals, and remittances in transit, demand deposits and current accounts in the Banco Central de Costa Rica, financial entities in the country and abroad, and those documents for immediate collection are included (…) On the other hand, regarding class 120 'Investments in Financial Instruments', the chart of accounts establishes in the concept of this account that it 'represents a contract that simultaneously gives rise to a financial asset in one entity and a financial liability or a capital instrument in another company or entity, which may or may not be incorporated into a document, and which, due to its own legal configuration and transfer regime, can be traded in a financial market or on a recognized and duly regulated stock exchange' (…) Once the above clarifications have been made, I am next permitted to send you the balance of accounts 110, 120, 211, and 213, as of December 31 of the indicated years, as they were reported to this Superintendency by the respective entity.

(folios 334 to 336 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative record); iii) That as a consequence of the request for information made by Banco BCT on November 4, 2011, SUGEF issued certificate number SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 of 2:00 p.m. on January 25, 2012, a document in which it indicates that the data “…correspond to the accounting and financial information sent by Banco BCT S.A. and Financiera Londres Ltda, to this Superintendency, and that is available in our databases for the periods between 1999 and 2002, inclusive…” and that it refers to “the balances of the requested accounting accounts, as well as the 3-month maturities in national currency and foreign currency” (folios 342 to 346 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative record); iv) That in a document dated February 22, 2012, the representative of Banco BCT presented to the Tax Administrative Court, not only the copy of the certificate issued by SUGEF on January 25, 2012, referred to in the preceding section, but also, based on said information, proceeded to determine the percentages for the liquidity factor for each of the audited fiscal years, dividing the total of 3-month average maturities adjusted for volatility by the total average financial liability, obtaining the following result:

(folios 357 to 364 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative record); v) From the foregoing, it is evident that the response to the request for information made by the TFA on April 28, 2010, was not addressed by SUGEF through certificate number SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 of 2:00 p.m. on January 25, 2012, as stated by the Tax Administrative Court in the questioned resolution (folio 429 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative record); but rather through official letter SUGEF 2207-201004134 of July 8, 2010, in which the Dirección General de Servicios Técnicos of SUGEF stated—of relevance—that "In relation to the above, we are permitted to indicate that the requested information is not required by the Superintendency in the terms indicated in your official letter"; for which reason, the percentages that the Tax Administrative Court recognized for the concept of “financial expenses interest” incurred for the raising of resources to constitute liquidity reserves by Banco BCT, was not a percentage given by SUGEF, but rather responds to a calculation made by Banco BCT itself, and which does not prove to be an adequate reference to establish the amount (quatum) of the expense associated with a reserve requirement or a reserve—in the terms of what was resolved by the Tax Administrative Court in resolution 114-2012—since these two figures correspond, as has been said, to sums from which the entity detaches itself, separating them from those others that, according to its ordinary course of business, can be used.

• d)Nombre14412. Based on the foregoing, this collegiate body considers that resolution number TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, regarding recital IX and the operative part related to that aspect, contains defects generating absolute nullity in both the motive and content, as the premises from which it started—motive—to resolve in the aforementioned manner—content—were not in accordance with the legal system. This is because it is contradictory to the very thesis that the Tax Administrative Court set forth regarding the application of the proportionality criterion; imprecise in its terminology, by referring to diverse legal figures indiscriminately, generating uncertainty for the Administration and the taxpayer; and omissive by recognizing deductible expenses on a liquidity reserve that is not such, overlooking that regarding the minimum legal reserve requirement, the respective percentage for each of the audited fiscal years had already been recognized, and that proportionality under Article 7 of the Income Tax Law and Article 11 of its regulations had been applied to the other financial expenses, so that in accordance with the terms resolved in the questioned formal conduct number TFA 114-2012, a double recognition of financial expenses was made. Consequently, partial absolute nullity is declared, as it is harmful to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Court at 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, only insofar as it orders the acceptance as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income, the percentages of 23.20% for 1999, 29.46% for 2000, 25.28% for 2001, 36.54% for 2002, 29.55% for 2003, 32.64% for 2004, and 35.87% for 2005, for the concept of “financial expenses interest” for the raising of resources to constitute liquidity reserves in favor of Banco BCT, S.A. (see in a similar sense, judgments 95-2019-V of 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V of 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019; and 44-2019-IV of 8:27 a.m. on June 6, 2019, all from the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda).

VI.- REGARDING THE INCOME OBTAINED FROM OPERATIONS AND INVESTMENTS MADE WITH FOREIGN COMPANIES. In the first place, what is under discussion is the territoriality of the income. In this regard, Article 1 of the Income Tax Law indicates that income, profits, or benefits from a Costa Rican source are subject to the tax, those from services provided, goods located, or capital used in the national territory, which are obtained during the fiscal period in accordance with the provisions of the law. The State's representative is correct in that this is an aspect that has been addressed by the judgments issued in this jurisdiction, as well as by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in the judgments indicated in her complaint filing brief, specifically in resolution 671-F-S1-2010 of nine hours ten minutes on May twenty, two thousand ten, when it points out that to define territoriality, the circumstances in which the income originates must be evaluated. In that sense, said Chamber has considered that "...according to what will be set forth, the direct defect it accuses is not evident; hence the outlined arguments cannot be accepted. According to what was indicated by the appellant, canon 1 of the LIR was improperly applied or erroneously interpreted by the Court; given that it was interpreted that ‘overnight’ operations have a territorial nature and are therefore subject to taxation. The rule in question, of interest, states ‘… ARTICLE 1.- Tax that the law comprises, taxable event, and taxable matter. A tax is established on the profits of companies and individuals who carry out lucrative activities. The taxable event of the tax on profits referred to in the preceding paragraph is the receipt of income in money or in kind, continuous or occasional, from any Costa Rican source. This tax also levies income, continuous or eventual, from a Costa Rican source, received or accrued by individuals or legal entities domiciled in the country…’ From this rule, it can be concluded that Costa Rica has a territorial tax system, which imposes an objective element regarding the activities subject to said tax levy, namely, the principle of territoriality. According to this principle, for income to be taxed, it must be generated on national soil; what matters is that the service provided, the good located, or the capital used has its genesis in the country. Now, to determine if profits must be taxed according to that cited territoriality element, this decision-making body has repeatedly stated that it is necessary to take into consideration the place where that income originates, using for this the concept of Costa Rican source. Income, profits, or benefits from a Costa Rican source must be understood as those from services provided, goods located, or capital used in the national territory. In this sense, see ruling no. 617-2010 of 9 hours 10 minutes on May 20, 2010, and no. 945 of 10 hours on December 7, 2005. (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Res: 000326-A-S1-2017, of ten hours fifty-five minutes on March twenty-third, two thousand seventeen. The highlighting does not correspond to the original). For its part, in judgment number 94-2009 issued by Section VII of this Court at fourteen hours on September thirty, two thousand nine, it was estimated that: 'The principle of territoriality is not limited to a merely spatial reference, but encompasses all those cases in which the activity carried out by the taxpayer generates income directly linked to the structure or economic source from which it is derived, that is, the territory and the Costa Rican economic structure.' Consequently, it is not then a matter that by the sole circumstance of there being income produced abroad, its exemption operates automatically, by application of the extraterritoriality rule, but on the contrary, the conditions surrounding the matter must be analyzed. Based on the foregoing, this Court considers that, effectively as determined by the Tax Administration in resolutions DT10R-058-08 of 12:00 p.m. on April 30, 2008; AU10R-076-08 of 12:00 p.m. on June 3, 2008, both issued by the Large Taxpayers Administration of the Dirección General del Tributación and TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, income derived from operations carried out with capital from Costa Rican sources, as is the case here, must be understood as taxable, not abusively interpreting the territoriality criterion contemplated by both the Income Tax Law and its regulations, quite the opposite, this criterion is extracted from the literality of the rule that speaks to us of income product of a Costa Rican source. Even more so, when it is held as not demonstrated that the income declared as non-taxable and that was considered by the Tax Administration within the determinative process as taxable, was not a product of a Costa Rican source and the ordinary course of business of the Bank, within the national territory (recital II, section a of this judgment). For this reason, the criterion developed by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Court in recital VI and in the operative part related to that aspect in resolution number 114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, must be declared harmful to the interests of the State, insofar as it ordered: "...The appealed resolution is revoked regarding the adjustments: (…) B) TAXABLE INCOME DECLARED AS NON-TAXABLE, (Interest income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies)…” (see in a similar sense, judgments number 95-2019-V of 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V of 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019; 77-2019-VIII of 8:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, all from the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda).

VII.- REGARDING THE COGNIZANCE PROCESS RAISED BY BANCO BCT AND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE SO-CALLED Nombre67376 METHODOLOGY PROMOTED BY THE ASOCIACIÓN BANCARIA COSTARRICENSE. With regard to the validity of the procedure followed by the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense to achieve the approval of the methodology called Nombre67376 and the possibility that it binds Banco BCT, this collegiate body shares the criterion contained in judgment number 77-2019 of 8:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, issued by the Eighth Section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. In that sense, it is necessary to define, first, what is understood by *interesado* (interested party), it being the criterion of this Court that, based on Article 15 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos, it would be the taxpayer of the tax who would have to make the petition to bind both himself and the Administration to the result of it, since the aforementioned rule is what defines who the subjects are that intervene in the tax relationship, which would be the active party, that is, the entity or body creditor of the tax, and the passive party, which would be the person obligated to the fulfillment of the tax obligations, whether as a taxpayer or as a responsible party. Now, without prejudice to the fact that in this case it is accredited that Banco BCT is part of the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense (ABC) (folio 170 of the judicial record), it is also true that even though Nombre67376 could deduce a mediate interest in the matter, it is not the subject of the tax obligation in question, and therefore, it would not have standing for the petition made before SUGEF and the DGT, so that the application of the methodology for calculating the non-deductible financial expense, the non-deductible administrative expense, and the non-deductible expense for exchange rate differential be authorized. On the other hand, even assuming that Nombre67376 had standing and that Banco BCT is part of it, according to the same text of Article 102 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, for a matter of such importance, such as the use of the methodology in question, to have —in principle— an effect that would bind the Administration and grant, in turn, a favorable and consolidated situation in favor of the taxpayer, it would be through the consultation under Article 119 of the CNPT, as indicated by the same rule (102 of the CNPT). For these purposes, the Court agrees with what was indicated by the Contraloría General de la República (CGR) in report DFOE-IP-06-2005, regarding the need for the consultation, as well as with what was resolved by Section VI of this Court, in judgment 127-2013-VI, of fourteen hours forty-five minutes on October twenty-first, two thousand thirteen, which states: “…IV.- On the figure of tax consultation. The issue of the characteristics, legal nature, and scope of the tax consultation, from a generic plane, has already been submitted for the knowledge of this Court and subject to analysis in a case similar to this one, which gave rise to judgment number 102-2012-VI of 4:20 p.m. on June 4, 2012, issued by this same Section VI. Such a position is therefore assumed as a base premise for the analysis of this case. Regarding the tax consultation, it is worth noting what is set forth below. In the field of legal-tax relations generated between the Tax Administration (Treasury) and the taxpayers (or responsible parties), as a derivation of legal certainty and security, for the purpose of providing greater clarity and precision to the scope and projection of the content of the formal and material duties of the obligated subjects, the legal system confers a series of powers to the Treasury that precisely seek to delimit the scope of the rules that regulate the indicated obligation relations. In this line, part of those competences are directed at issuing general rules that facilitate the correct application of tax rules. This is a generic competence contained in canon 99 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios and which enables, ex officio, the issuance of interpretative guidelines or institutional criteria that seek, it is insisted, to delimit the way in which a certain tax rule is to be understood in general contexts. However, the same reasons indicated make it possible for the taxpayers to formally require from the Tax Administrations a consultation on the criterion to be applied to a specific, concrete tax situation, in which they have some degree of reasonable doubt regarding the manner in which to proceed in order to comply with their formal or material obligations. Numeral 119 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios regulates the minimum elements and procedural framework of this institute. In this case, reference will be made to the version of that rule prior to the reform made by Law No. 9069, given that it is the one applicable on that consultation date (March 14, 2011), and in accordance with what is established by ordinal 9 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios. Note that Law No. 9069, which reformed, among multiple rules, the aforementioned canon 119, came into effect upon its publication, which occurred in Supplement No. 143 to the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 188 of September 28, 2012. Therefore, the rules that this new legislation imposes cannot be applied to this case, since the consultation is of a date prior to that effective rigor. Having made that clarification, it is worth noting that the previous version (applicable to the case) of that mandate indicated: 'Article 119.- Consultations. Whoever has a personal and direct interest may Consult the Tax Administration on the application of the law to a concrete and current situation of fact. To this effect, the consultant must set forth in a special document, with clarity and precision, all the constitutive elements of the situation motivating the consultation and may likewise express their founded opinion. The note or document formulating the consultation must be presented with a faithful copy of its original, which, duly sealed and with an indication of the date of its filing, must be returned as proof to the interested party./ The consultation presented before the expiration of the deadline for filing the tax return or, where applicable, within the term for payment of the tax, exempts the consultant from penalties for the excess resulting from the administrative resolution, if said excess is paid within the thirty days following the date of notification of the respective resolution. To resolve the consultation, the Administration has forty-five days, and if at the expiration of said term it does not issue a resolution, the interpretation of the consultant must be deemed approved, if the consultant has set it forth. / Said approval is limited to the specific case consulted and does not affect taxable events that occur after the notification of the resolution that the Administration may issue in the future. / The consultation resolved based on inaccurate data provided by the consultant is null.' For its part, the tax consultation procedure or process is also regulated in section II of chapter VI of the Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29264-H -RGGFRT-. In view of that rule (Art. 119 CNPT), it is the criterion of this Court that the purpose of the tax consultation figure is to delimit the interpretation and application of a specific tax rule to a concrete case, according to the meaning granted to it by the Treasury, in order to grant the taxpayer a criterion regarding the consulted matter, which provides security in their actions. Now, from this viewpoint, what is resolved within the consultation process generates a criterion to which the taxpayer must submit, to the extent that it sets the manner in which their tax situation is to be understood in accordance with the rules that regulate it. It is an institute that allows the taxpayer to request from the Administration a prior ruling regarding the understanding and/or scope of a tax rule in the concrete case. In this sense, one may see, as a reference, what was stated by Section II of this Court, in ruling No.

225 of 10:00 a.m. on June 23, 2009. However, it should be noted that the tax consultation constitutes a mechanism that allows taxpayers to have clarity and certainty in the acts they must adopt regarding the formal and material duties of tax obligations. The Costa Rican tax system is based on a scheme of self-determination, self-declaration, and self-assessment, which means that it is the taxpayer who initially defines the content and amount of their tax obligations, declares them, and pays them, and after that, the oversight powers of the Tax Administrations emerge. Depending on the correct exercise of tax duties, determinations may be made that increase the taxable base, include income or activities not declared by the taxpayer, and eventually, not only adjust the tax duty but also exercise external sanctioning powers, whether due to the occurrence of administrative infractions or tax crimes. In this way, the consultation process allows the taxpayer to obtain a pronouncement from the Tax Administration that undoubtedly indicates how, in the specific case consulted, they should act to proceed in accordance with their tax duties. Subsequently, if they act in a contrary manner despite having been instructed otherwise through this process, the tax non-compliance is evidenced with greater rigor; or, if they act in the terms that the Administration indicated, that compliance, being protected by the opinion of the consulted body or instance, will be in good faith and imbued with legitimate trust, for which reason it is unfeasible to subsequently reproach them for potential tax neglect, provided that the factual conditions of the declaration are the same as those submitted for consultation, since if they are variable or different, that opinion will not be applicable. This is because the public decision would address the consultation of specific situations, so that by weighing the factual-legal assumptions a, b, and c, decision X is issued. Then, if the effective situation that forms the basis of the declaration is dissimilar to the one consulted (e.g., b, c, and d), decision X is no longer applicable, so in that case, that opinion would no longer protect the taxpayer. The opposite would lead to an abuse of right and to extending, through conjecture, what was resolved in a specific consultation to conditioning assumptions that were not present at the time the conditioned effect was issued, expressed via consultation. From this perspective, although it can be said that what is resolved in the consultation does not generate a perfected subjective right, since the conditions between the consultation and the declaration may vary, certainly, in the judgment of this collegiate body, it does generate an effect of certainty in favor (or against) the consultant, which cannot later be disregarded, and which means that if the declaration or determination is made in accordance with what was resolved in the consultation, it is not appropriate to require behaviors different from those guided by the Tax Administration itself. The opposite would lead to the absurdity that despite having an interpretive guideline formally issued by a competent authority regarding specific situations, the Administration could disregard it and impose not only increases in the tax quota on the taxpayer, but also eventually apply interest, fines, and administrative sanctions, leading, in that hypothesis, to arbitrariness and inequity to the detriment of the administered party, who, in that line, adjusted their behavior to what the Tax Authority indicated at the time. We insist, this is always provided that the consultation-declaration conditions are the same. Disregarding what was resolved in a tax consultation process would empty the very purpose of that process and lead to the illogical situation of having an administrative opinion that ultimately generates no certainty, because it can later be disregarded, even regarding the situations that were consulted. Hence, one of the requirements of the tax consultation is the current nature of the unknown and its relationship with a specific fiscal period and tax, which will be addressed below. V.- Now, this type of proceeding should not be confused with simple administrative petitions, regulated in provision 102 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios). Their requirements are diverse given the specialty and specificity of what is requested, just as the deadlines available to the Administration are different. It is therefore important to specify the requirements for tax consultations. Rule 119 of the CNPT establishes the following requirements: a) Existence of a personal and direct interest of the taxpayer in the face of a doubt; b) application to a specific and current factual situation; c) the formulation of the consultation in a clear and precise writing, expressing the reasons for the situation that originates the consultation, as well as the legal-interpretive criterion of the consultant regarding the specific situation presented; and d) presentation of the original and a faithful copy, duly sealed and with an indication of the date of its submission. Meanwhile, canon 124 of the RGGFRT establishes the following requirements: a) Pose the specific and current factual situation, based on exact data; b) Clearly and precisely explain all the constituent elements of the situation that motivates the consultation; c) Indicate the name of the interested party or parties in the case; d) Indicate the affected tax or taxes, with their respective fiscal periods; e) Express the reasoned opinion of the consultant; f) The writing formulating the consultation must be submitted with a faithful copy of its original; the Tax Administration official who receives it must acknowledge receipt by stamping the office seal, indicating the date of submission and their full name, both on the copy to be returned to the interested party and on the original. On the other hand, the Administration has a period of 45 business days to resolve the consultation, which, if overlooked, gives way to the application of the figure of tacit consent (silencio positivo), by virtue of which, the interpretation given by the consultant is understood to be approved, provided that such a criterion has been stated. The foregoing is provided that the data presented were true and with the warning that this aspect is limited to the specific case, without being able to affect subsequent facts. However, it should be noted that the prior existence of pronouncements, interpretive guidelines, or similar from the Tax Administration that bear some degree of relation to the object of the consultation does not, in all cases, impede the possibility of formulating this type of proceeding, since doubts may well arise as to whether those provisions are fully applicable to the specific factual situation consulted. The power to address consultations of this nature stems from the normative function of the Tax Administration, which, according to numeral 118 of the RGGFRT, has the purpose of ensuring the correct and uniform application of the tax rules that regulate the taxes administered by the Dirección General de Tributación” (the highlighting is not from the original). Based on the foregoing, this Court agrees with the criterion outlined by the state representation that official letter DGT-1659-03 of December 2, 2003 (folio 86 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file), is a mere opinion, and that the procedure to obtain—in principle—the legal consequences of legitimate trust, good faith, legal certainty, and intangibility of one's own acts, should have followed the procedure established in numeral 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), which the Bank's representation was not unaware of, since due to the special nature of its commercial line, they have constant technical advice, and it is scarcely credible that on a matter as sensitive as this, they would not have sought advice from specialists. Therefore, both due to the lack of standing of the ABC, and due to the manner chosen to do it, there was no act capable of binding the Tax Administration to the Bank, regarding the use of the methodology, nor that authorized it for its use both in the period to be declared and to rectify previous periods. At this point, it is essential to highlight that SUGEF itself expressly indicated that the methodology was not authorized for tax purposes but for accounting purposes—see folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; evidentiary file of "report DFOE-IP-06-2005"—, so regardless of whether it remains in force or not, it is not for those effects; as well as that there is no act of the Tax Administration that expressly and directly authorized Banco BCT to use that methodology and to rectify the declarations of fiscal periods prior to the year 2003 under the terms of numeral 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios)—in force at that date—(it is not evident from folios 82 to 86 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file; see folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; evidentiary file of "report DFOE-IP-06-2005"), so the audit carried out and concluded in the challenged determination was appropriate not only due to the antecedent of the report by the Contraloría General de la República (CGR), but also due to the obligations imposed by the legal system for the benefit of adequate tax collection. In that sense, it should be noted that the CGR indicated very serious objections regarding the ABC methodology, as it caused a higher deduction of deductible expenses to be applied, which led to a reduction in the tax, an aspect that could have been debated both in the determinative procedure and in this forum, but which was not done, despite having had the opportunity for its defense with the possibility of providing the respective evidence. Also, considering that the petition was not filed by the legitimized person, as well as that it was not done in the manner prescribed by the legal system, it becomes unnecessary to refer to the content of official letter DGT 1659-03, regarding whether an authorization could be deduced from it, because, as indicated, Banco BCT was in a position to know—and it was required of them to know—that for the use of that methodology to be authorized, they had to resort to the consultation provided for in article 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), a situation that also distorts the principle of good faith, as well as the application of the principle of legitimate trust. This collegiate body adds that the administrative act authorizing a specific conduct must be express, a situation that could only be achieved through the consultation, so grammatical interpretations regarding official letter DGT 1659-03 from the Director General de Tributación are not admissible. Nor is there a subjective right declared in favor of Banco BCT, so the principles of intangibility of one's own acts and non-retroactivity cannot be alleged, nor the obligation to resort to the lesividad process or the procedure of evident and manifest nullity provided for in the Ley General de la Administración Pública, because once again it is reiterated that the Tax Administration did not specifically authorize the banking entity to use the methodology, nor can a subjective right be deduced from the action of an Association that is not a taxpayer, despite the fact that Banco BCT is an active member of said association. On the other hand, the fact that the Dirección General de Hacienda, through resolutions number DGH-042-2012 of 11:30 a.m. on December 12, 2012; DGH-029-2013 of 3:33 p.m. on August 23, 2013; DGH-030-2013 of 3:35 p.m. on August 23, 2013; and DGH-031-2013 of 3:43 p.m. on August 23, 2013, all issued by the Dirección General de Hacienda (images 123 to 149 of the judicial file), ordered the condonation of interest in favor of Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, Banco BAC San José, Banco Scotiabank de Costa Rica, S.A., and Banca Promérica, S.A., generated by the ex officio determinations made by the Subgerencia de Fiscalización of the Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes for the fiscal periods between 1992 and 2005, does not constitute, in the judgment of this Court, suitable evidence that the principle of legitimate trust was harmed to the detriment of Banco BCT. This is because, although it is true that said resolutions are based on the existence of "...an error by the Administration that in turn caused the taxpayer to be induced to commit errors when determining their obligations..."; it is also true that in the same formal documents, two reasons are adduced that prove the contrary, namely: 1) "...That the taxpayer, protected by the criterion given in the official letter, proceeded to rectify the income tax declarations for fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 and filed declarations for fiscal periods 2003, 2004, and 2005, using the cited methodology for such purposes..." (the highlighting is not from the original). It should be remembered that SUGEF itself expressly indicated that the methodology was not authorized for tax purposes but for accounting purposes and that there is no act of the Tax Administration that expressly authorized Banco BCT for its use and for the rectification of declarations for fiscal periods prior to the year 2003 under the terms of numeral 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios)—in force at that date—. 2) "...Subsequently, through audit actions by the Administration, differences are determined against the taxpayer that originated because the taxpayer made their declarations protected by the questioned official letter and the Administration determined that the correct way was to do it in accordance with the Income Tax Law (articles 7 of the Law and 11 of the Regulation). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated by the Tax Administration itself that there is a contradiction between the content of the indicated regulations and official letter 1659-03, and the higher-ranking regulation must prevail..." (the highlighting is not from the original). In that sense, we insist—as considered supra—that Banco BCT was not in a position to claim that it did not know that for the possible authorization of the use of the ABC methodology, it had to resort to the consultation provided for in article 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) (in force at that time), a situation that distorts the principle of good faith. Finally, and without prejudice to the foregoing, it is essential to indicate that in accordance with the principle of legal reservation in tax matters (article 5, subsection a of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), in force at that time), only by means of formal and material law can the calculation bases of the tax be determined—among other aspects—, for which reason, neither SUGEF nor the DGT could have validly authorized the use of the methodology for tax purposes, as this would have implied—in principle—a modification of the income tax calculation basis provided for in numeral 7 of the law that regulates that tax, in those cases of taxpayers who generate both taxable and non-taxable income with that tax—as is the case here—. Consequently, the application of the provisions in numerals 10 and 12 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional and 129 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica, in relation to the scope of the powers granted therein to SUGEF, must be carried out in accordance with the principle of legal reservation in tax matters (see in a similar sense, rulings 95-2019-V of 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V of 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019; 77-2019-VIII of 8:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, all from the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda).

VIIIo.- REGARDING THE ALLEGED NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN DFOE-IP-06-2005 OF THE CONTRALORÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA. This Court considers that by virtue of the fact that Report DFOE-IP-06-2005 has enormous importance in this matter, it is necessary to reference it, indicating first the observations made regarding the use of the ABC methodology: "...In summary, it has been shown that the Methodology does not associate non-deductible expenses with significant sources of non-taxable income, but rather with a so-called "excess liquidity" defined using elements of financial regulations, but not entirely adjusted to them. Since such "excess liquidity" is determined by excluding securities with terms of more than one month, and subsequently multiplied by a significantly reduced financial cost rate, the result is a systematic underestimation of non-deductible financial expenses and, by derivation, of non-deductible administrative expenses and exchange rate differential expenses. In such a way that the non-deductible expenses resulting from the Methodology, in the best of cases, could not be understood as the only non-deductible ones, nor would it be admissible to consider all the remaining ones as deductible. Doing so, due to what has already been analyzed and commented on, would constitute an underestimation of non-deductible expenses, and consequently an overestimation of deductible expenses. Net income, in its case, would be being underestimated. 2.4.3. RECTIFICATIONS BASED ON THE METHODOLOGY. “Table 1 shows the amounts of Net Income, determined by the public banks, unrectified and rectified as a product of the application of the Methodology corresponding to the fiscal periods from 2000 to 2002. The tax losses (negative net incomes) of the banks increased considerably in such periods (with the exception of one bank). Thus, the total amount of tax losses of the referred banks increased by approximately ¢30,000 million annually, on average. The negative fiscal result of such establishments responds to criteria specific to their tax declaration, not to their economic reality, characterized by positive profits". Table 2 indicates the total amounts of Deductible Expenses, determined by the cited banks, before and after making the respective rectifications, by virtue of the application of the Methodology in the cited periods. It was to be expected, given the content of the audits carried out by the DGT and the resolutions issued by the TFA on this matter, that deductible expenses should be subject to limits, and the application of the Methodology should be consistent with that trend; however, the study found that in some cases deductible expenses show an increase, and in others the decrease is slight, consistent with what was discussed in section 2.4.2. The overall sum of expenses deducted by the public banks, as observed, increased. (...) In accordance with what is stated in this section 2.4, and within the framework of the Tax Administration's competencies related to management, collection, tax auditing, and access to tax-related information established in the legal system, and by virtue of the fact that the thesis adopted by the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo has been the application of the proportionality criterion established in the Income Tax Law and its Regulation (with the exception of the 25% deduction of financial expenses attributable to non-taxable income), it is necessary for said Administration to delve deeper into this situation, and definitively determine whether the application of the Methodology is consistent with the tax calculation basis established in the Income Tax Law 7092. (...) “...after the approval of the methodology by the Dirección General, only one case has been audited, which belongs to the Public Sector. In the review carried out on said bank, one of our risk areas was the application of the methodology.../ In the review of this case, we verified that the application of this methodology led to the taxpayer applying a higher deduction of deductible expenses. Furthermore, there is a study conducted by the auditors, where they issue their opinion on the methodology; however, it is considered that this study has not been endorsed by the Dirección General... said study will be reviewed by the Normative and Audit Areas, to then proceed with its formalization./ I do not fail to state that this Administration has not made any comparison of the collection effect since the approval of the methodology, and to carry that out, it would be required to audit each of the Banks". In accordance with the foregoing, it is also necessary that, according to its powers and in accordance with the respective audit programs and procedures, the audit actions on the banking entities deemed pertinent be carried out". (The highlighting is not from the original). Now, this collegiate body believes that of equal importance is the analysis made by the CGR, regarding the concurrence of competencies and the actions of both SUGEF and the DGT, in the context of the issuance of official letter DGT-1659-03 dated December 2, 2003, in the following sense: "...Without prejudice to the previously indicated (which would be what is transcribed regarding the implementation of audit actions), we will now proceed to the analysis of other aspects related to the procedures carried out before SUGEF AND DGT. 2.5 SOME LEGAL ASPECTS RELATED TO THE PROCEDURES CARRIED OUT BEFORE SUGEF AND THE DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE TRIBUTACIÓN. The study carried out determined the following: a) Without prejudice to what was previously noted regarding the legal reservation in tax matters, with respect to the procedure carried out by SUGEF, paragraph 1 of numeral 119 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central 7558, of November 3, 1995, defines the subjective or organic scope of that entity's competence: "For the purpose of ensuring the stability, solvency, and efficient functioning of the national financial system, the Superintendency shall exercise its supervision and oversight activities over all entities that carry out financial intermediation, in strict compliance with legal and regulatory provisions, ensuring they comply with the precepts applicable to them.../ In relation to the proper operation of the supervised entities and the recording of their transactions, the Superintendency shall be empowered to issue the general rules necessary for the establishment of sound banking practices, all in safeguarding the interest of the community....( ) The general rules and guidelines issued by the Superintendency shall be mandatory for the supervised entities." To the indicated powers of SUGEF are added normative and directive attributions since it can issue general rules or guidelines to the supervised entities. In this sense, numeral 129 of the same Law states: "Acceptance of Superintendency criteria. The criteria established by the Superintendency, regarding the accounting record of operations by supervised entities, the preparation and presentation of their financial statements, their chart of accounts, the valuation of their financial assets, and the classification and rating of their assets, must be accepted for tax purposes." On the other hand, in accordance with our legal system, the Tax Administration is the administrative body responsible for collecting and auditing taxes and issuing general rules for the correct application of tax laws. In this regard, article 99 of Law 4755, of April 29, 1971, Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) states: "Concept and powers. Tax Administration is understood as the administrative body responsible for collecting and auditing taxes, whether it is the Tax Authority or other public entities that are active subjects, pursuant to articles 11 and 14 of this Code.../ Said body may issue general rules for the purposes of the correct application of tax laws, within the limits set by the relevant legal and regulatory provisions. In the case of the Tax Administration of the Ministry of Finance, when this Code grants a power or faculty to the Dirección General de Tributación, it shall be understood that it is also applicable to the Dirección General de Aduanas and the Dirección General de Hacienda, within their areas of competence." (*) This article has been amended by Law No. 7900 of August 3, 1999. LG# 159 of August 17, 1999." Meanwhile, in relation to the normative competence of the Tax Administration, indicated in the previous numeral, article 100 of the same Code establishes: “Article 100.- Review by the hierarchical superior. / The rules referred to in the preceding article may be modified or repealed by the hierarchical superior, by means of reasoned resolutions". Regarding what was previously stated in this document, as a result of the Association's request, CONASSIF, at SUGEF's request, agreed to modify the chart of accounts for the banking entities of the Sistema Bancario Nacional, for purposes of the accounting record of non-taxable income and non-deductible expenses. However, regarding the official letters issued by SUGEF on this case, that superintendency stated to this Contraloría that: "Said official letters did not constitute an authorization for the recording or for the calculation of non-deductible expenses of the banks of the Sistema Bancario Nacional for tax purposes. This Superintendency does not have legal powers that allow it to authorize, through the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense, all entities of the Sistema Bancario Nacional on the application of the proposed methodology for the recording and calculation of non-deductible expenses, used in the calculation of income tax.../ Neither this Superintendency, nor the Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero have the competence to authorize methodologies and accounting records for tax purposes..../ Notes SUGEF 4406-200309032, SUGEF-4338-200309032, and SUGEF 4796-200309032 present criteria that are not binding to a request from the ABC..../ To date, this Superintendency has not authorized the banks of the Sistema Bancario Nacional to make adjustments based on the application of the methodology in question for the indicated periods, according to the request submitted by the ABC". b) Notwithstanding the importance of the referred petition that was formulated in relation to the Methodology, before the Dirección General de Tributación, regarding the studies that supported what was resolved by the DGT, it indicated that: "...3. internally, the Director General de Tributación appointed at that date was responsible for analyzing the proposal and giving his approval.../4. Our records do not show that internal technical or financial studies were conducted within the Administration regarding that methodology. However, this Dirección General will proceed to carry out the necessary studies to determine if the method currently applied, based on the proposed methodology... should be maintained or if it should be modified. /...Our records do not show that previous or subsequent studies were conducted on the effects or future fiscal impact of the application of the methodology. But... this Dirección General will proceed to carry out the necessary studies to determine if the method currently applied... should be maintained or if it should be rendered ineffective to return to the system under which proportionality was applied/...Our records do not show that studies were conducted on the differences in the taxable base and the eventual lower tax to be paid. With the studies to be carried out, this situation will also be assessed...". Given the above, in the opinion of this Contraloría, what was resolved by the Dirección General de Tributación at that time did not conform to the corresponding legal regulations, since the importance of the matter, and the change of criterion that such a resolution implied in light of prior tax disputes, required due and express justification or reasoning, as established in numeral 136 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, which states: 'The following shall be reasoned with mention, at least succinct, of their grounds:.../ c) Those that depart from the criterion followed in previous actions or from the opinion of advisory bodies" (...) c) In response to a consultation from this Contraloría, the DGT communicated that the processing of the Association's request was indeed appropriate, by virtue of the provisions of article 102 of the CNPT" (The consultant based the request on this article), which states: "The Director General of the Tax Administration or the managers of the tax administrations and large taxpayers to whom he delegates, totally or partially, are obligated to resolve any petition or appeal filed by interested parties within a period of two months, counted from the date of submission or filing of one or the other." By petition, it must be understood as a claim regarding a real case, based on reasons of legality.../\" Notwithstanding the opinion expressed by the DGT on the Administration's competence to process said request, in accordance with Article 102 of the cited Code, the envisaged consultation (consulta) is reserved, from the standpoint of active legal standing (legitimación ad causan activa), for those who have a personal and direct interest (taxpayers, successors, responsible parties, withholding and collection agents), regarding the application of tax law to a concrete and current factual situation. Regarding this type of situation, the DGT has stated the following: \"Both cited norms (referring to numerals 102 and 119 of the CNPT) are clear and deal solely with claims or petitions from the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo), therefore, in accordance with this provision, the consulted case does not fit within the circumstances required by the regulations, because the person making the petition or the one consulting is not the interested party (sujeto interesado), but rather a professional, who provides services to the legal entity, as noted in his brief: 'a client,' and these only proceed when formulated directly by whoever has a personal interest in having the law applied to their concrete and current situation, since when responding, the pronouncement would have an impact and repercussion on persons other than those who have intervened.\" Likewise, that directorate, in official communication (oficio) 0167, of February 7, 2001, clarifies, regarding the type of proceeding and competence regulated by numeral 102 of the Code, the following: \"Returning to the above, we can establish that when the first paragraph of Article 102 speaks of a petition (petición), it is referring to any claim formulated on a real case, and which is based on reasons of legality, which must be resolved within a period of two months from its filing; otherwise, it will be deemed denied, and the corresponding appeals may be filed against it. \" For its part, on this same subject, the TFA has pronounced in the following terms: \"(...) The consultant must possess a personal and direct interest in the application of the law to a concrete and current factual situation. In view of the foregoing, it is considered that the so-called consultation by the appellant is not such, in the terms required by that legal provision; the Tax Administration, by answering it, would have its pronouncement affect and have repercussions on persons other than those who have intervened in the formulation of the consultation, especially since there has been no authorization from the taxpayers to whom it is intended to apply… If the interested party's reasoning and the interpretation of the mentioned texts were admitted, the eventual resolution issued by the Tax Administration would have effects of general scope, which evidently was not intended or desired by the legislator when requiring a personal and direct interest in a concrete and current factual situation, since otherwise, as in the case under discussion, the pronouncement rendered would reach third parties, who have not been parties to these proceedings, distorting the Institution of the consultation (Instituto de la consulta) (...)\" Ruling No. 33, at 8 a.m. on June 22, 1993. First Chamber. Administrative Fiscal Tribunal (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo). On the other hand, regarding the communication of the decision of the Directorate, it was indicated: \"In the case of the consultation raised by the Association (consultant), this was resolved directly by the Director General at that time, based on the powers granted by law. / The response to the request made, in accordance with Article 102 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), was notified to the place indicated by the Association for that purpose. The matter of communication to third parties by the applicant is not a matter within the competence of this General Directorate…\". In the opinion of this Comptroller's Office, what is set forth in the preceding paragraph would not be consistent with the provisions of numeral 101 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, which states: \"Publicity of tax rules and jurisprudence. Without prejudice to the publicity of laws, regulations, and other general provisions issued by the Tax Administration in use of its legal powers, the agency responsible for the application of taxes must immediately make known, through the Official Gazette and other publicity means appropriate to the circumstances, the resolutions or judgments in particular cases that in its judgment are of general interest, omitting references that may harm private interests or the guarantee of the confidential nature of the information established by Article 112 of this Code.\" Finally, Article 142, subsection 2 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) establishes regarding the efficacy of administrative acts: \" 2. For it to produce retroactive effect in favor of the administered party, it will be required that from the date set for the start of its effect, the reasons for its adoption exist, and that the retroaction does not harm rights or interests of third parties in good faith.\" d) The situations set forth in subsections a), b) and c) of this section 2.5 must be analyzed by the Ministry of Finance (Ministerio de Hacienda) for the purpose of sizing their effects and adopting the actions that, eventually, may be applicable. The actions taken must be coordinated with the General Superintendency of Financial Entities (SUGEF) and carried out with the assistance of the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República), when applicable, and according to their competences, and regarding said actions, due process must be observed, with respect to the financial entities of the National Banking System (Sistema Bancario Nacional), in what is pertinent. (...) 4. PROVISIONS 4.1 TO THE MINISTER OF FINANCE (MINISTRO DE HACIENDA). a) Immediately carry out the pertinent actions so that it is definitively determined whether the Methodology for the calculation and recording of non-deductible expenses (Metodología para el cálculo y registro de los gastos no deducibles), associated with non-taxable income of the banking entities of the National Banking System, submitted for the consideration of the DGT and SUGEF, is consistent with the tax calculation base established in Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) 7092 and also, if based on the situations indicated in relation to what was decided by these latter entities, it is appropriate to nullify what was decided on the Methodology, and issue any other resolution that, eventually, may be necessary, for the purpose of sizing its effects and adopting the applicable actions. The actions taken must be coordinated with the General Superintendency of Financial Entities and carried out with the assistance of the Attorney General's Office, when applicable and according to their competences, and regarding said actions, due process must be observed with respect to the financial entities of the National Banking System, in what is pertinent. b) Carry out, within the framework of the competences of the Tax Administration and in accordance with the audit programs and procedures, and in light of what is set forth in this report, the audit actions on the banking entities of the National Banking System, as applicable\" (Emphasis is not from the original). Based on the foregoing partial transcription of Report number DFOE-IP-06-2005 and coupled with the fact that neither the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) is a party to this process, nor has the plaintiff demonstrated that said comptroller body in any way accused the Tax Administration of non-compliance with what was ordered in its report, this tribunal considers that the statement of objections (traslado de cargos) and the assessment resolutions (resoluciones determinativas) issued against Banco BCT reflect compliance with the provisions of the aforementioned report and not, as the representation of Banco BCT erroneously interprets. In that sense, it is reiterated that the provision of report DFOE-IP-06-2005 regarding the initiation of audit actions did not depend on institutional coordination to analyze the adherence of methodology Nombre67376 to the legal system, since in accordance with the provisions of Articles 12 and 29 of the Organic Law of the CGR, the report is clear in ordering that the Minister of Finance must: “…b) Carry out, within the framework of the competences of the Tax Administration and in accordance with the audit programs and procedures, and in light of what is set forth in this report, the audit actions on the banking entities of the National Banking System, as applicable…”. Consequently, the argument is unfounded and must be so declared (see in a similar vein, judgments 95-2019-V at 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V at 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019; 77-2019-VIII at 08:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, all from the Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda)).

IX.- REGARDING EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCES FROM OTHER INVESTMENTS AND OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT ABROAD. In this regard, this Tribunal considers the following. The tax on profits, in general terms, has as its taxable event (hecho generador), as indicated in Article 1 of the Income Tax Law - in force at that time - the perception of Costa Rican-source income, in the following terms: \"The taxable event of the tax on profits referred to in the preceding paragraph is the perception of income in money or in kind, continuous or occasional, from any Costa Rican source. This tax also levies continuous or eventual income from a Costa Rican source, received or accrued by individuals or legal entities domiciled in the country; as well as any other income or benefit from a Costa Rican source not exempted by law, (...) For the purposes of the provisions of the foregoing paragraphs, income, earnings, or benefits from a Costa Rican source are understood as those from services rendered, goods located, or capital used in the national territory, which are obtained during the fiscal period in accordance with the provisions of this law.\" Likewise, Articles 5 through 7 and 81 of the same law prescribe the method for determining the taxable base (base imponible), which, in general terms, is the deduction from gross income, which includes all income, of those costs useful and necessary for the production of the profit or benefit, as well as any other allowed by law. For its part, Article 8 of the Regulations to the Income Tax Law - in force at that time - established: \"Gross income (Renta bruta). It is constituted by the total of income or benefits, in money or in kind, continuous or eventual, received or accrued during the tax period and coming from any Costa Rican source of the activities referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 1 of the law. It is also constituted by the exchange rate differences arising from assets in foreign currency, related to the taxpayers' ordinary business operations.\" As financial intermediation is the main activity of Banco BCT, which leads it to place the resources it receives from investors to obtain better returns, as well as to lend them to deficit agents in need of these resources, the required habitualness is configured, which means that the exchange rate differential originating from the internationalization of resources is subject to the tax on profits, which would lead to declaring the nullity of the resolution of the TFA, regarding the recognition made to the Bank for that item. At this point, it is necessary to highlight that the legal representatives of Banco BCT indicate that it is improper to tax the income obtained from exchange rate differentials on income earned from operations and investments made with foreign companies - with the exceptions established by law - given that numeral 1.3 of Executive Decree number 28590-H establishes that \"...In accordance with Article 10 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System (Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional) and the Chart of Accounts for Financial Entities, valuation adjustments shall not be taken into account for determining the net profits of banks...\". Without prejudice to the fact that according to the principle of tax legality (principio de legalidad tributaria) provided in Article 5, subsection a) of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures in force at that time, exemptions from a tax obligation are a matter reserved to law, therefore, an exoneration cannot be established through a regulatory norm; it is also true that the application of the provisions of numerals 10 and 12 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System and 129 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Banco Central de Costa Rica), regarding the scope of the powers granted therein to SUGEF, must be carried out precisely in accordance with the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. In this sense, this Tribunal shares the reasoning contained in assessment resolution number DT10R-058-08 at 12:00 noon on April 30, 2008, issued by the Large Taxpayers Administration (Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes) of the General Directorate of Taxation (Dirección General del Tributación), which on this point considered: \"... The transcribed legal norm has nothing to do with the levy on exchange rate differences discussed in this dispute, but rather with the constitution of reserves related to exchange rate fluctuations and their deduction for purposes of determining the net profits of banks. Indeed, one thing is the levy on the exchange rate differential for discounts and capital gains generated by adjustments due to changes in the realizable value of investments, investments in dollars with withholding at source, exempt investments in dollars, among others, under the provisions of Articles 1, 5 and 81 of the Income Tax Law and 8 of its Regulations, and a completely different thing are the so-called reserves for exchange rate fluctuations, which the financial entities regulated by the General Superintendency of Financial Entities are obligated to establish and which, according to the cited decree, will not be taken into account for determining the net profits of banks. In other words, no sum is being rejected for the concept of reserves for exchange rate fluctuations, but rather, what is being done is taxing income for the concept of exchange rate differential resulting from the development of its regular activity, namely financial intermediation...\" (folios 194 to 195 of volume V of the \"determinative\" administrative file; the highlighting is not from the original). Consequently, and for all the foregoing reasons, the argument is unfounded and must be so declared (see in a similar vein, judgments 95-2019-V at 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; 77-2019-VIII at 08:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, all from the Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal).

X.- ON THE ALLEGED STRICT LIABILITY OF THE STATE FOR LAWFUL CONDUCT AND NORMAL OPERATION. In the subsidiary claim number 3 of the lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, it requested \"... that the liability for lawful conduct and normal operation of the State be declared, it being appropriate to request that due to the exceptional intensity of the injury and the small proportion of those affected, it be declared that there is no basis whatsoever for the imposition of interest and penalties related to the tax adjustments made in the challenged acts...\". Notwithstanding the foregoing, the representatives of Banco BCT did not develop in their statement of claim (folios 13 to 78 of the judicial file) the factual and legal arguments on which the aforementioned claim is based, as indicated by the State Attorney appearing in these proceedings in her response to the complaint (folio 117 of the judicial file). Given the stated omission, this Tribunal lacks the necessary elements to analyze and resolve whether or not the requirements established in Article 194 of the General Law of Public Administration are met in the specific case, especially as the representative of the State has also been unable to provide a defense for that same reason, whereby this collegiate body rejects subsidiary claim number 3. Added to the above, it should be noted that - according to what was indicated by one of the legal representatives of Banco BCT during the clarification stage of the oral and public trial hearing held on December 10, 2019 (see digital backup of that diligence contained in the associated documents folder of the virtual file) - the Tax Administration decided to forgive (condonar) Banco BCT the interest on the amounts determined for the fiscal periods between the years 1992 to 2005 for income tax purposes, a decision that motivated said banking entity to pay said sums under protest on April 2, 2014, as shown by the payment receipts visible on folios 226 to 231 of the judicial file. So much so, that this caused Banco BCT to expand its claims so that, in the event the lawsuit were granted, the State be ordered to \"...reimburse the amounts paid on April 2, 2014, plus their respective interest generated from the moment of payment until the date of their effective return...\". For all the foregoing reasons, subsidiary claim number 3 regarding an alleged strict liability of the State for lawful conduct and normal operation is rejected.- XI.- Nombre14412. For everything set forth in recitals V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X of this judgment, the following are declared unfounded: a) Claim 1 of the lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, to the effect of declaring the absolute nullity of the statement of objections; the assessment resolutions, issued in the income tax audit procedure for periods between 1999 and 2005, as well as resolution 114-2012 issued by the TFA. b) Claim 2, so that subsidiarily, the partial nullity be declared of the statement of objections; the assessment resolutions, issued in the income tax audit procedure for periods between 1999 and 2005, as well as resolution 114-2012 issued by the TFA, in everything that is abative to its represented party. c) Claim 3, so that subsidiarily, if it is deemed that there is no reason for nullity, the State's liability for lawful conduct and abnormal operation be declared, it being appropriate to request that due to the exceptional intensity of the injury and the small proportion of those affected, it be declared that there is no basis whatsoever for the imposition of interest and penalties related to the tax adjustments made in the challenged acts; d) Likewise, and by the manner in which it is resolved, claim 5 (reimbursement of the amounts paid under protest plus their interest) is also unfounded since its estimation was conditional upon the annulment claims indicated above being granted.

XII.- ON THE SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES (EXCEPCIONES DE FONDO). This collegiate body considers that for everything set forth in recitals IV, V, VI, VII, VIII; IX and X of this judgment, the lack of right defense (excepción de falta de derecho) filed by the State is upheld and consequently, the lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, S.A. against the State is declared dismissed in all its aspects. For its part and based on everything set forth in recitals IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X of this judgment, the lack of right defense filed by Banco BCT, S.A. is rejected, and therefore, the action for declaration of harmfulness (demanda de lesividad) filed by the State against said banking entity is granted, in the following terms, being understood as denied what is not expressly indicated: 1) The partial absolute nullity is declared, for being harmful to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal at 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, insofar as it orders accepting as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income, the percentages of 23.20% for 1999, 29.46% for 2000, 25.28% for 2001, 36.54% for 2002, 29.55% for 2003, 32.64% for 2004 and 35.87% for 2005, for the concept of “financial interest expenses” for the procurement of resources to build up liquidity reserves in favor of Banco BCT, S.A.; 2) The partial absolute nullity is declared, for being harmful to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal at 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, insofar as it ordered: \"...The appealed resolution is revoked regarding the adjustments: (…) B) TAXABLE INCOME DECLARED AS NON-TAXABLE (Interest income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies)…”; 3) Consequently, the decision of the former Tax Administration of Large Taxpayers in assessment resolution number DT10R-058-08 at 12:00 noon on April 30, 2008, confirmed by resolution number AU10R-076-08 also issued by the Large Taxpayers Administration, at 12:00 noon on June 3, 2008, is upheld; 4) By reason of the foregoing, once this judgment becomes final, the Directorate of Large National Taxpayers (Dirección de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales) of the General Directorate of Taxation, must proceed to liquidate the tax obligation of Banco BCT, S.A. related to the Income Tax for the fiscal periods between 1999 and 2005, inclusive, in accordance with the provisions of assessment resolution number DT10R-058-08 at 12:00 noon on April 30, 2008, in the terms that have been ordered in this judgment, of which the representatives of the State must inform the Judges of the Judgment Execution Phase (Fase Ejecución de sentencias) of this Tribunal, within a period of six months from the date this pronouncement becomes final. The foregoing, without prejudice to the forgiveness of interest in favor of Banco BCT, S.A. ordered by the General Directorate of Finance (Dirección General de Hacienda).- XIII.- ON COSTS. In accordance with numeral 193 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), procedural and personal costs (costas procesales y personales) constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by the fact of being so. The waiver of this condemnation is only viable when, in the Tribunal's judgment, there was sufficient reason to litigate or, when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence whose existence the opposing party was not aware of. In this case, this collegiate body finds reason to apply the exceptions set by the applicable regulations and to break the rule of condemnation of the losing party, because by virtue of the nature of the debated issues, it is considered that Banco BCT had sufficient reason to litigate. Regarding the harmfulness process, despite the fact that the claims raised therein are granted in full, this collegiate body considers that by virtue of the change in criterion of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal; the way in which the facts that were ventilated here developed; and the existing jurisdictional precedents, the representation of Banco BCT had sufficient reason to litigate, which is why it is resolved without special condemnation in costs. Therefore, both parties must bear the costs generated by this process (see in a similar vein, judgments 95-2019-V at 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V at 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019, both rendered by Section V of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal).

THEREFORE (POR TANTO).

The lack of right defense filed by the State is upheld and consequently, the lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, S.A. against the State is declared dismissed in all its aspects. For its part, the lack of right defense filed by Banco BCT, S.A. is rejected, and therefore, the action for declaration of harmfulness filed by the State against said banking entity is granted, in the following terms, being understood as denied what is not expressly indicated: 1) The partial absolute nullity is declared, for being harmful to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal at 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, insofar as it orders accepting as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income, the percentages of 23.20% for 1999, 29.46% for 2000, 25.28% for 2001, 36.54% for 2002, 29.55% for 2003, 32.64% for 2004 and 35.87% for 2005, for the concept of “financial interest expenses” for the procurement of resources to build up liquidity reserves in favor of Banco BCT, S.A.; 2) The partial absolute nullity is declared, for being harmful to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal at 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, insofar as it ordered: \"...The appealed resolution is revoked regarding the adjustments: (…) B) TAXABLE INCOME DECLARED AS NON-TAXABLE (Interest income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies)…”; 3) Consequently, the decision of the former Tax Administration of Large Taxpayers in assessment resolution number DT10R-058-08 at 12:00 noon on April 30, 2008, confirmed by resolution number AU10R-076-08 also issued by the Large Taxpayers Administration, at 12:00 noon on June 3, 2008, is upheld; 4) By reason of the foregoing, once this judgment becomes final, the Directorate of Large National Taxpayers of the General Directorate of Taxation, must proceed to liquidate the tax obligation of Banco BCT, S.A. related to the Income Tax for the fiscal periods between 1999 and 2005, inclusive, in accordance with the provisions of assessment resolution number DT10R-058-08 at 12:00 noon on April 30, 2008, in the terms that have been ordered in this judgment, of which the representatives of the State must inform the Judges of the Judgment Execution Phase of this Tribunal, within a period of six months from the date this pronouncement becomes final. The foregoing, without prejudice to the forgiveness of interest in favor of Banco BCT, S.A. ordered by the General Directorate of Finance. 5) These matters are resolved without special condemnation in costs.- Marianella Álvarez Molina Ileana Isabel Sánchez Navarro Juan Luis Giusti Soto ASUNTO: PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO ACTORS: BANCO BCT, S.A.; EL ESTADO (Procuradora Paula Azofeifa Chavarría) DEFENDANTS: EL ESTADO (Procuradora Sandra Sánchez y Nombre5486) Y EL BANCO BCT, S.A.

*JTNNQHQRZVC61* MARIANELLA DEL CARMEN ALVAREZ MOLINA, TRIAL JUDGE ILEANA ISABEL SANCHEZ NAVARRO, TRIAL JUDGE JUAN LUIS GIUSTI SOTO, TRIAL JUDGE **Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo,** **II Circuito Judicial de San José, Dirección04** Central 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33 Correo Electrónico _______________________________________________________________________ **EXPEDIENTE**: 13-001793-1027-CA *(acumulado el Exp. 14-001246-1027-CA)* **ASUNTO**: PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO **ACTORES**: BANCO BCT, S.A.; EL ESTADO *(Procuradora Paula Azofeifa Chavarría)* **DEMANDADOS**: EL ESTADO *(Procuradora Sandra Sánchez y Nombre5486)* Y EL BANCO BCT, S.A.

**Nº 03-2020-V** **TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN QUINTA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. ANEXO A.** Goicoechea, at thirteen hundred hours on the fourteenth of January of two thousand twenty.- Ordinary proceeding (Proceso de conocimiento) filed by **BANCO BCT, S.A.,** legal identification number CED90996**,** whose Special Judicial Attorneys-in-Fact are **Nombre115094** , identity card number CED90997, **Nombre115095** **,** identity card CED90998 **Nombre534** **,** identity card number CED90267 *(folios 121 and 355 of the judicial file; images 1 to 8 of the brief received at the trial hearing of 10-12-2019, visible in the briefs folder of the virtual file)*; against the **ESTADO**, whose representatives are the Procuradoras **Sandra Sánchez Nombre5486,** identity card CED1123 and **Paula Azofeifa Chavarría**, identity card number CED363, *who, in turn, filed a lesividad proceeding* against **Banco BCT, S.A.** *(folios 82 and 319 of the judicial file)*.- **RESULTANDO:** **1.-** The claims of Banco BCT, S.A. –which were set both at the preliminary hearing held on October 22, 2014, and at the oral and public trial hearing held on December 1, 2019–, are so that the judgment declares *“...**1.** The absolute nullity of the entire supervisory procedure (procedimiento fiscalizador) followed against my Represented, such that the challenged administrative acts become absolutely null. We specifically challenge the following administrative acts: Statement of Objections (Traslado de Cargos) Nº CED90999 of the Large Taxpayers Tax Administration; Resolution DT10R-058-08, of twelve hundred hours on the thirtieth of April of two thousand eight, issued by the Large Taxpayers Administration of the DGT; Resolution TFA Nº 114-2012, of eleven hundred hours on the twelfth of March of two thousand twelve, the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo. **2.** Subsidiarily, if the claim for nullity of the administrative proceeding followed against my Represented does not prosper, I request the declaration of partial nullity of the following administrative acts, in whatever they contain ablative provisions against my Represented: Resolution DT10R-058-08, of twelve hundred hours on the thirtieth of April of two thousand eight, issued by the Large Taxpayers Administration of the DGT; Resolution TFA Nº 114-2012, of eleven hundred hours on the twelfth of March of two thousand twelve, the First Chamber of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo. Consequently, that the legal situation of my Represented be restored, considering that the declarations of the audited periods were made in accordance with the Legal System, and that the payments made for Income Tax were correct and in compliance with the Law, without any basis whatsoever for them to be varied or altered by the Administration. **3.** Subsidiarily, if the Court considers that there is no reason for nullity in any of the actions challenged herein, I request that liability for lawful conduct and normal functioning of the State be declared, it being appropriate to request that due to the exceptional intensity of the injury and the small proportion of those affected, it be declared that there is no basis whatsoever for the imposition of interest and penalties related to the tax adjustments made in the challenged acts. **4.** From the perspective of claims 1 and 2, I request that if the lawsuit is upheld, the State be ordered to pay costs, in accordance with Article 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. **5.** In accordance with Articles 46 subsection e), 60 subsection 3), 68 subsection 4), 90 subsection 2), 110, 145 subsection a) and concordant articles of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, the refund of the amounts paid on April 2, 2014, plus their respective interest generated from the moment of payment until the date of their effective refund, is requested...*” *(folios 76 and 77, 216 and 365; digital backup of the preliminary hearing of 10-22-2014 and the trial hearing of 12-10-2019).* **2.-** The representative of the State denied the claim, raised the **defense of Lack of Right (Falta de Derecho);** requested that all of the plaintiff's claims be rejected as unfounded; that the lawsuit filed against the State be dismissed and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay both sets of costs, as well as the interest that said sums generate from the finality of the judgment until their effective payment. Finally, she indicated that she waived the conciliation hearing *(folios 84 to 118 of the judicial file).* **3.-** The claims of the State –which were set at the preliminary hearing held on June 24, 2015–, are so that the judgment: *“... **1.** That the nullity be declared of the ruling of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, First Chamber, No. **114-2012,** of 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012, for being contrary to Law and harmful to the public and economic interests of the State, **only** regarding the revocation of the following adjustments: **A)** Income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies; **B)** Financial expenses associated with the \"liquidity reserves\". **2.** That it be declared that the resolution of the Dirección General de Tributación, Large Taxpayers Administration, No. DT10R-058-08, of 12:00 hours on April 30, 2008, in what is the subject of challenge, is in accordance with the Law.* 3. That in the event of opposition to this claim, the personal and procedural costs of the litigation plus any eventual interests derived therefrom shall be borne by the defendant party…” (folios 286 and 357 verso of the judicial file; and digital recording of the preliminary hearing of 24-06-2015).

4.- The representative of Banco BCT, S.A. answered the claim negatively; filed the objection of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho); requested that the claim filed by the State be denied in all its aspects and that it be ordered to pay both costs in this proceeding (folios 292 to 316 of the judicial file).

5.- The preliminary hearing corresponding to file 13-001793-1027-CA was held starting at 13:29 hours on October 22, 2013, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is added to the file in a special appendix (folios 214 to 219 of the judicial file).

6.- That by resolution number 070-2014 issued at 15:06 hours on September 26, 2014, the Fifth Section of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda) ordered: “…It is ordered to consolidate the proceeding processed under file No. 14-001246-1027-CA to the one processed under file No. 13-001793-1027-CA. The proceedings in the latter are suspended until the former reaches the same procedural stage, at which point the physical joining of the files shall proceed. A copy of this resolution shall be added to file No. 14-001246-1027-CA…” (folios 253 to 254 of the judicial file).

7.- The preliminary hearing corresponding to file 14-001246-1027-CA was held at 13:35 hours on June 24, 2015, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is added to the file in a special appendix (folios 357 to 358 of the judicial file).

8.- By resolution of 08:15 hours on July 28, 2015, Section V of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda) ordered: “…Proceed with the physical joining of file 14-001246-1027-CA to file l3-001793-1027-CA, as had been ordered in resolution 070-2014-V of fifteen hours six minutes on September twenty-six, two thousand fourteen. The processing of this proceeding is suspended until the Acción de Inconstitucionalidad being processed before the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) under file No. 14-012592-0007-CO is resolved…” (folio 360 to 361 of the judicial file).

9.- That by decree of 14:15 hours on February 14, 2018, it was ordered: “…Given that the acción de inconstitucionalidad processed under file number 14-012592-0007-CO –which caused the suspension of proceedings in this main proceeding–, was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, by judgment number 2017-015495 of 11:40 hours on October 4, 2017, and its operative part was published in the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial) number 201, 202 and 203 of October 25, 26 and 27, it is resolved: based on the trial scheduling agenda of this Section and without prejudice that –if possible– a closer hearing date will be communicated to the parties in due course, they are summoned, in accordance with the provisions of articles 99 and following of the Code of Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), to the oral and public trial to be held in COURTROOM ONE of this Court, starting at EIGHT HOURS AND THIRTY MINUTES ON DECEMBER 10, 13 and 18 OF THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND NINETEEN…” (images 435 to 437 of the trial scheduling decree, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file).

10.- By resolution of 08:21 hours on December 2, 2019, the request made by the representative of Banco BCT was resolved in the following manner: “…it is necessary to indicate that, according to the provisions of the decree scheduling the oral and public trial issued at 14:15 hours on February 14, 2018 (images 435 to 437 of the virtual file as of the date of issuance of this resolution), the parties and their witnesses were summoned to attend the hearing on all three days. This is because, while it is true that this is a complex proceeding –given that the lesividad claim filed by the State representative was consolidated–, in which there are 5 witnesses to be examined; it is also true that the course of the hearing is an aspect that cannot be predicted, as it depends on multiple factors related to the conduct of the parties during the proceeding; functioning of the equipment; among other aspects. Therefore, the presence of all admitted witnesses is necessary, so that they are available to give their testimony at the moment the Court requires it, unless there is a justified cause that makes it impossible for them to appear from the first day for which they were summoned, which is not evidenced in this case. In any case, it should be remembered that the trial scheduling decree was notified to the representative of Banco BCT as of February 14, 2018, while the reminder for the oral and public trial was notified on November 22, 2019, therefore, the necessary logistics so that the plaintiff party's witnesses could attend the Court's summons from the first day set for the trial hearing should have been arranged by the banking entity with the due anticipation of the case…” (images 1 to 2 of the resolution of 02-12-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file).

11.- The oral and public trial hearing was held starting at 08:50 hours on December 10, 2019, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file. During this hearing, the Court deemed the testimony of witnesses Nombre71895, Nombre115096, and Nombre113731 to be waived; with the consent of both parties, the opening arguments were dispensed with, and the time that was going to be granted for that purpose was credited for use in the conclusions phase; the remaining testimonial evidence admitted for Banco BCT and the State was examined; and subsequently, the persons representing the Bank and the State presented their conclusions. Upon concluding, the Court verified the notification methods and indicated that the judgment would be issued in writing, within the period of fifteen business days provided for in subsection 1) of article 111 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), given that this is a complex proceeding and whose calculation must take into consideration the collective closure for vacations –which includes the days 23, 24, 26, 27, 30 and 31 of December 2019, 2 and 3 of January 2020– approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in session number 86-19, article XLV (see digital recording of the oral and public trial hearing of 22-11-2019).- 12.- No nullities that must be corrected or that cause defenselessness have been observed in the proceedings before this Court, and the judgment is issued within the period established in article 111 subsection 1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), which expires on January 14, 2020, given that the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in session number 86-19, article XLV, approved the collective closure for vacations, which includes the days 23, 24, 26, 27, 30 and 31 of December 2019, 2 and 3 of January 2020.- Drafted by Judge Álvarez Molina, with the affirmative vote of Judge Sánchez Navarro and Judge Giusti Soto; and,

WHEREAS:

I.- PROVEN FACTS: The following facts that are relevant to this proceeding are deemed duly accredited: 1) That in a brief received on October 15, 2003, the Costa Rican Banking Association (Asociación Bancaria Costarricense) submitted to the Superintendent General of Financial Entities a formal request for authorization for the calculation and recording of non-deductible financial expense, non-deductible administrative expense, and non-deductible exchange differential expense of financial institutions. “…Thus, we request: A) That financial entities be authorized to calculate the non-deductible financial expense; non-deductible administrative expense and non-deductible exchange differential expense, in accordance with the methodology detailed in the annexed document and its recording in memorandum accounts. B) Authorization to make the corresponding adjustments for the periods 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002, in accordance with the proposed methodology and the recording of said adjustments in memorandum accounts. C) Authorization to allow the adjustment of the indicated periods to be charged to retained earnings…” (folios 68 and 69 of volume V of the administrative file “determinativo”); 2) By official letter SUGEF-4406-2003/09032 of October 31, 2003, the General Superintendency of Financial Entities indicated regarding the request and the methodology of the Costa Rican Banking Association: "…Since the accounting guidelines issued by this Superintendency do not allow the specific and precise association mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the implementation of a viable and verifiable model that allows determining the financial, operational, and exchange differential expenses associated with the resources that constitute the excess liquidity held by the entities would, to a large extent, resolve that need for information. In accordance with the procedures to obtain the calculations mentioned above and based on the implicit assumptions, we consider that the methods analyzed in this document constitute a viable application tool that uses variables derived from the provisions of standards issued by this Superintendency and that, therefore, are verifiable. Likewise, its nature is consistent with that of the ultimate objective of said methods; that is, to obtain data that allows associating with the assets that make up the excess liquidity held by the entities, the financial, administrative, and exchange differential costs or expenses, and the income they generate that, in an estimated manner, can be attributable to them" (folios 82 to 85 of volume V of the administrative file “determinativo”; highlighting is not in the original); 3) In an official letter identified as ABC-264-2003 of November 13, 2003, addressed to the Director General of Taxation, the Costa Rican Banking Association states, in summary: "... 3. The Association wishes to issue a recommendation to its members so that, based on the indicated methodology, the banks proceed to calculate and record the non-deductible financial expenses, the non-deductible administrative expenses, and the non-deductible exchange differential expense. The foregoing will also necessarily lead them to have to amend the returns for the detailed periods. 4. Due to the importance of the matter and the acts involved in its implementation, we wish to request this Directorate to issue a ruling confirming the appropriateness of the methodology that SUGEF has validated, as the suitable and correct means to calculate the non-deductible financial expenses, the non-deductible administrative expenses, and the non-deductible exchange differential expense, so that the banks may proceed to perform the corresponding calculations and records and thus comply with the provisions of article 7 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) and 11 of its Regulations. 5.

The above request was made based on article 102 of the Code of Tax Procedures…” (evidentiary file of Report DFOE-IP-06/2005; the highlighting is not from the original); **4)** By official communication SUGEF 4634-2003 dated November 20, 2003, the Superintendent General of Financial Institutions forwarded to the National Council for Supervision of the Financial System the project for the modification of the Chart of Accounts for Financial Institutions so that it could be sent for consultation to the financial system, noting that “…The implementation of this modification will allow supervised entities to have a tool for the control and recording of non-deductible expenses associated with income not subject to income tax payment…” (Evidentiary File of Report DFOE-IP-06-2005); **5)** That the National Council for Supervision of the Financial System ordered in article 10 of the Minutes of Session 406-2003 of December 2, 2003, to send for consultation to the entities, financial groups, and represented chambers of the financial sector, the project for the modification of the Chart of Accounts for financial institutions (folios 120 to 125 of volume V of the administrative file “Determinativo”); **6)** That by official communication DGT-1659-003 of December 2, 2003, the General Director of Taxation indicated to the Costa Rican Banking Association that: “…By this means I am responding to your official communication ABC-0264-2003. We have reviewed the methodology proposed in the official communication dated October 15, 2003, and its annexes and approved by the General Superintendency of Financial Institutions, in official communication SUGEF 4406-2003/09032, for calculating the non-deductible financial expense and the non-deductible exchange differential expense. This office wishes to inform you that it considers reasonable and correct the indicated methodology, for purposes of calculating the non-deductible financial expense, the non-deductible administrative expenses, and the non-deductible exchange differential expense of the banks of the national banking system…” (folios 86 of volume V of the administrative file “Determinativo”; the highlighting is not from the original); **7)** That through official communication SUGEF 4796-200309032, dated December 2, 2003, addressed to the Costa Rican Banking Association, the Superintendent indicated: “… we inform you that on November 27th last, this Superintendency presented to CONASSIF a proposal for modification to the Chart of Accounts for financial institutions to proceed with the opening of sub-accounts and analytical accounts that allow the recording and identification of non-taxable income and non-deductible expenses, used in the calculation of income tax. Furthermore, with respect to what was requested in point 3 of your communication, aimed at granting authorization for the accounting adjustments generated by the correction of income tax returns from prior periods to be made against retained earnings, we would like to indicate that in our opinion this type of correction qualifies in accounting terms as a fundamental error. Consequently, and in accordance with the current Chart of Accounts for Financial Institutions, these adjustments must affect the retained earnings from prior fiscal years and specifically, in the case at hand, account 352 “Accumulated Losses from Previous Fiscal Years…” (folio 87 of volume V of the administrative file “Determinativo”; the highlighting is not from the original); **8)** By official communication SUGEF 974-2004 of March 15, 2004, the General Superintendent indicated to CONASSIF, that: “…On the occasion of your consultation, the Costa Rican Banking Association observed that the inclusion of a memorandum account that identifies the 'Non-deductible Expenses for impairment of investments in securities and estimation of uncollectibility of the credit portfolio' does not correspond to the purpose of the modification, since it is a clearly identified deductible expense in the income statement account 420 'Expenses for impairment of investments in securities and estimation of uncollectibility of the credit portfolio.' This observation was evaluated and accepted by the Superintendency and constitutes the only change in the project regarding the original proposal. Therefore, we submit for your approval the project of reforms to the 'Chart of accounts for financial institutions' duly modified…” (evidentiary file of Report DFOE-IP-06/2005); **9)** By Official Communication CNS 269-04 of April 13, 2004, the National Council for Supervision of the Financial System informed the Superintendent General of Financial Institutions, that: “…1.- It agreed to modify the Chart of Accounts for Financial Institutions so that sub-accounts and analytical accounts are added, in accordance with the following text (…). 2.- The modifications to the Chart of Accounts for Financial Institutions set forth in numeral 1 above, are effective from their publication in the Official Gazette “La Gaceta…”; which was published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta of April 21, 2004 (folios 125 to 126 of volume V of the administrative file “Determinativo”; evidentiary file of Report DFOE-IP-06/2005); **10)** That by official communication number DGT-2351-2004 of October 8, 2004, the General Director of Taxation responded to official communications FOE-IP-261 of September 2 and FOE-IP-304 of October 4, both from 2004, sent by the Comptroller General of the Republic, at which time, he indicated -in what is relevant- that: “…once the methodology was approved by SUGEF, it was presented for consultation to the General Directorate of Taxation, which approved it, on the basis that it had been approved by SUGEF, which is the technical body of the Public Administration competent to authorize the methodology for determining and recording the Banks' expenses. The General Directorate of Taxation issued a positive opinion, also on the basis that the methodology meets the requirements of the Administrative Tax Tribunal and of this General Directorate of Taxation. Once the methodology was approved by the General Directorate of Taxation, the banks proceeded to record their expenses correctly, for the periods not subject to audit and made the modifications and rectifications in the tax returns. Likewise, they proceeded to make the corresponding payments for the rectified periods…” (folios 13 to 15 of the judicial file; folios 71 and 134 of volume III of the administrative file “Hojas de Trabajo”); **11)** That the Comptroller General of the Republic sent several official communications to the General Directorate of Taxation, in order to collect the necessary information to carry out the corresponding analysis regarding the methodology of the Costa Rican Banking Association, official communications: 2101 of February 23, 2005 FOE-IP-0059, 2229 of February 25, 2005, FOE-IP-0065 (evidentiary file of “Report DFOE-IP-06/2005”); **12)** That the General Directorate of Taxation responded to the Comptroller's requests through official communications: GGC-067-2005 of March 14, 2005 and DGT-369-2005 of March 4, 2005 (evidentiary file of “Report DFOE-IP-06/2005”); **13)** Through official communications 2886 of March 11, 2005 FOE-IP-0081, 3004 of March 15, 2005, FOE-IP-0082; 3625 of April 1, 2005, FOE-IP-0095; 3974 of April 12, 2004, FOE-IP-0098; the Comptroller requested a series of information from SUGEF (evidentiary file of “Report DFOE-IP-06/2005”); **14)** Through Official Communication SUGEF 1216-200502862 of March 16, 2005, SUGEF sent the Comptroller General of the Republic official communication SUGEF 4338-2003/09032 of October 24, 2003; in SUGEF 1292-200502937 of April 7, 2005, it referred to official communication N°3004 of March 15, 2005; in SUGEF 1508-2005 of April 15, 2005 it referred to official communication N°3974 of April 12, 2005 (evidentiary file of “Report DFOE-IP-06/2005”); **15)** That on June 16, 2005, the Division of Operational and Evaluative Audit, Public Revenue Area of the Comptroller General of the Republic, issued report N°DFOE-IP-06/2005, called “Report of the Special Study Conducted in the General Directorate of Taxation,” in which it issued the following orders: “… **4.1. To the Minister of Finance:** **a)** Immediately undertake the pertinent actions so that it is definitively determined whether the Methodology for the calculation and recording of non-deductible expenses, associated with non-taxable income of the banking entities of the National Banking System, submitted for the knowledge of the DGT and SUGEF, is consistent with the tax calculation base established in the Income Tax Law 7092 and also, whether based on the situations indicated in relation to what was resolved by these latter entities, it is appropriate to nullify what was resolved regarding the Methodology, and issue any other resolution that may eventually be necessary, for the purpose of sizing up its effects and adopting the applicable actions. The actions taken must be coordinated with the General Superintendency of Financial Institutions and carried out with the assistance of the General Attorney's Office of the Republic when appropriate and in accordance with its competencies, and regarding said actions, due process must be observed regarding the financial entities of the National Banking System, as pertinent. **b)** Carry out, within the framework of the competencies of the Tax Administration and in accordance with the audit programs and procedures, and in light of what is set forth in this report, the audit actions on the banking entities of the National Banking System, as appropriate. **c)** Issue the corresponding measures so that, immediately, an administrative investigation is conducted in this ministry regarding the facts discussed in this report and any other situation related to this case. If appropriate, eventual responsibilities and sanctions must be established, in accordance with the principles and procedures of due process, and all other pertinent legal measures must be adopted, including the referral of this case to the Public Ministry if applicable. **d)** Issue the necessary directives so that henceforth, in cases where it applies, the regulations, resolutions, or criteria issued by the Tax Administration, which in accordance with the legal system must be supported by legal, economic, and any other nature studies, are prepared by the specialized technical bodies of the Administration, and be recorded in the respective files. **e)** Issue the corresponding instructions so that a review is conducted of the regulations (decrees, norms, resolutions, or criteria) concerning the non-taxable income and non-deductible expenses referred to in this report, for the purpose of making the adjustments that may eventually be applicable, all in accordance with the current tax legal framework. **f)** Notify this Comptroller General, within the next fifteen business days, of the measures adopted to comply with the orders contained in this report. That office must arrange what is necessary for the immediate fulfillment of said orders, as well as for it to conduct periodic follow-up to guarantee their adequate and timely fulfillment, and so that the decisions and resolutions pertaining to each order are duly supported by the corresponding technical and legal criteria, and are fully adjusted to the legal system. That office and this Comptroller must be kept periodically and timely informed of what has been done in relation to the above orders, until their full fulfillment. **4.2. To the Superintendent General of Financial Institutions.** **a)** Adopt, in accordance with his competencies, the actions that, eventually, may be pertinent, with respect to what was resolved by that superintendency in relation to the Methodology, in coordination with the Ministry of Finance and the General Attorney's Office of the Republic, when applicable, with the corresponding observance of due process, if appropriate. **b)** Issue the corresponding measures so that an administrative investigation is immediately conducted in that Superintendency regarding the facts discussed in this report and any other situation related to this case. If appropriate, eventual responsibilities and sanctions must be established, in accordance with the principles and procedures of due process, and all other pertinent legal measures must be adopted, including the referral of this case to the Public Ministry, if applicable. **c)** Immediately arrange the corresponding actions so that henceforth, the regulations, resolutions, or criteria issued by that Superintendency, in accordance with the legal system, are coordinated with the Tax Administration, when appropriate. **d)** Notify this Comptroller General, within the next fifteen business days, of the measures adopted to comply with order 4.2.a)…” (folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; the highlighting is not from the original); **16)** In a brief received on July 5, 2005, the Costa Rican Banking Association proceeded to support before the Comptroller General of the Republic, the subsidiary appeal filed against Report N°DFOE-IP-06/2005 (evidentiary file of “Report DFOE-IP-06/2005” and folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005); **17)** That by Official Communication 10763-CO-0581, resolution R-CO-R-87-2005, at 08:00 hours on September 2, 2005, the Comptroller General of the Republic ordered: “…Based on the considerations set forth, the appeal for reversal and concomitant nullity filed by Mr. Name3850, in his capacity as president and legal representative of the Costa Rican Banking Association, directed against Report DFOE-IP-06/2005, issued by the Division of Operational and Evaluative Audit, Public Revenue Area of this comptroller body, is rejected for lack of standing. The administrative remedy is hereby exhausted” (evidentiary file of “Report DFOE-IP-06/2005” and folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005); **18)** That by Interpretative Directive number DGT-16-05 of December 19, 2005, the Acting General Director of Taxation ordered -in what is relevant-: “…This directive nullifies the criterion expressed in official communication of the General Directorate of Taxation No.

DGT-1659-03 of December 2, 2003, as well as any other criterion that opposes it in whole or in part or that has been interpreted in a manner different from what is set forth below…” (folios 88 to 91 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 19) That by statement of objections (traslado de cargos) number 275200016552 issued on November 13, 2007, by the Large Taxpayers Tax Administration of the DGT, it was indicated that in accordance with the ex officio determination (determinación de oficio) carried out, the tax liability of Banco BCT is as follows:

This because “…Banco BCT S.A., filed amended income tax returns (Impuesto sobre la Renta, Impuesto a las Utilidades) for the fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 (…), and the income tax returns for the fiscal periods 2003, 2004 and 2005 (…) using a methodology different from the proportionality established in Article 7 of the Income Tax Law and Article 11 of its Regulations, for purposes of calculating non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income; said methodology is not accepted by the Tax Administration, as indicated below: (...) In accordance with repeated rulings of the Tax Administrative Court, including Ruling No. 201-2005 of May 12, 2005, among others, it established that the proportion indicated in Article 7 of the Income Tax Law and Article 11 of its Regulations is a correct method for allocating expenses to non-taxable income and the only thing that would be questionable is whether the variables affecting said proportion were not determined correctly. Through Report No. DFOE-IP-06/2005 of June 16, 2005, the CONTRALORÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA questioned the methodology used by banking entities, since it was not consistent with the provisions of Income Tax Law No. 7092, of April 21, 1988. Because said methodology does not associate non-deductible expenses to sources of non-taxable income, but rather to a so-called excess liquidity, which is determined by excluding securities with a term of more than one month and is multiplied by a significantly reduced financial cost rate, resulting in an underestimation of non-deductible expenses and consequently an overestimation of deductible expenses, which in turn underestimates net income. Through Directive No. 16-05 of December 19, 2005, the Dirección General de Tributación rendered null and void Official Letter No. DGT-1659-03 of December 2, 2003…” (folios 1 to 9 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 20) That by determinative resolution (resolución determinativa) number DT10R-058-08 issued at 12:00 hours on April 30, 2008, by the Large Taxpayers Administration of the DGT, it was ordered: “… The challenge briefs, as well as the nullity incident, the exceptions, and the motion for reversal with subsidiary appeal before the Tax Administrative Court, concurrently filed by Mr. GERARDO ULLOA CASTRO, in his capacity as General Manager without sum limit of BANCO BCT SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, against the statement of objections and observations No. Identificacion614, the first corresponding to the Income Tax for Fiscal Periods 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 (…), are declared without merit. Consequently, an increase is determined with respect to what was declared, in the amounts of ¢97,540,626.00 (ninety-seven million five hundred forty thousand six hundred twenty-six colones and zero céntimos), ¢99,923,021.00 (ninety-nine million nine hundred twenty-three thousand six hundred twenty-one colones and zero céntimos), ¢108,779,953.00 (one hundred eight million seven hundred seventy-nine thousand nine hundred fifty-three colones and zero céntimos), ¢174,664,230.00 (one hundred seventy-four million six hundred sixty-four thousand two hundred thirty colones and zero céntimos), ¢233,139,234.00 (two hundred thirty-three million one hundred thirty-nine thousand two hundred thirty-four colones and zero céntimos), ¢89,575,289.00 (eighty-nine million five hundred seventy-five thousand two hundred eighty-nine colones and zero céntimos), and ¢ 103,793,249.00 (one hundred three million seven hundred ninety-three thousand two hundred forty-nine colones and zero céntimos), (…) for a total of ¢909,416,202.00 (nine hundred seven million four hundred sixteen thousand two hundred two colones, and zero céntimos)…” (folios 142 to 225, 11 to 52 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 21) That by resolution AU10R-076-08, also issued by the Large Taxpayers Administration, at 12:00 hours on June 3, 2008, it was ordered: “…The motion for reversal, as well as the nullity incident filed by Mr. GERARDO ULLOA CASTRO, in his capacity as General Manager without sum limit of BANCO BCT SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, against the resolution of this Office in resolution No. DT10R-058-08 of twelve hundred hours on April thirtieth, two thousand eight, are declared without merit. The appeal before the Tax Administrative Court is admitted…” (folios 237 to 263, 226 to 235 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 22) By interlocutory resolution INTER No. 084-2010 of 08:50 hours on April 28, 2010, the Tax Administrative Court requested from SUGEF the following information related to Banco BCT: “…the amounts or quantities that the cited entity maintains in liquid assets or liquidity reserves, which allow it to meet its obligations within the agreed-upon terms in its ordinary financial intermediation activity. The foregoing is required in relation to fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. It is clarified that the previous request is regarding the referenced liquid assets and not the percentage corresponding to the legal reserve requirement (encaje legal) that is maintained as a mandatory reserve with the Banco Central de Costa Rica (…) Where relevant, if possible, both the amounts allocated for the constitution of such liquid assets, in relation to public deposits by the financial entity, and the representative percentage between said deposits and the constitution of such liquid assets are requested…” (folios 325 to 327 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file; highlighting is not from the original); 23) In official letter SUGEF 2207-201004134 of July 8, 2010, the Dirección General de Servicios Técnicos of SUGEF indicated to the Investigating Judge of the Tax Administrative Court that “…We refer to interlocutory resolution INTER No. 084-2010, received by this Superintendency on April 30, 2010, through which the following is requested regarding the entity “Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima”: (…) In relation to the foregoing, we hereby indicate that the requested information is not required by the Superintendency under the terms indicated in your official letter. The ‘Chart of Accounts for financial entities, groups and conglomerates’ establishes the accounting structure: classes, groups, accounts, sub-accounts and analytical accounts, that financial intermediaries must use. According to the Chart of Accounts, entities must classify their accounts into the following classes: 110 Cash and Cash Equivalents, 120 Investments in Financial Instruments, 130 Loan Portfolio, 140 Accounts and Commissions Receivable, 150 Realizable Assets, 160 Equity Participations in Other Companies, 170 Premises, Furniture and Equipment, 180 Other Assets, 190 Investment Properties. Regarding class 110 ‘Cash and Cash Equivalents’ (Disponibilidades), according to the provisions of the Chart of Accounts, it ‘comprises assets that, due to their liquidity, have immediate availability. Therefore, this includes cash, precious metals and remittances in transit, demand deposits and current accounts in the Banco Central de Costa Rica, domestic and foreign financial entities, and those documents of immediate collection (...) On the other hand, regarding class 120 ‘Investments in Financial Instruments’, the Chart of Accounts establishes in the concept of this account that ‘it represents a contract that simultaneously gives rise to a financial asset in one entity and a financial liability or an equity instrument in another company or entity, which may or may not be incorporated in a document, and which, by their own legal configuration and transfer regime, may be subject to trading in a recognized and duly regulated financial market or stock exchange’ (…) Having made the previous clarifications, I hereby proceed to send you the balance of accounts 110, 120, 211, and 213, as of December 31 of the indicated years, as they were reported to this Superintendency by the respective entity.

| Period | Cash and Cash Equivalents (110) | Inver.Inst. | Finac</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(120)</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Cap a la vista</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(211)</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Cap a plazo</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(213)</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">December-1999</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">1,236,914,835</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2,963,804,478</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">688,952,534</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">250,397,008</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">December-2000</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">1,926,335,170</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2,158,091,001</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2,301,013,310</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">8,291,497,126</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">December-2001</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2,299,743,780</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">3,163,086,070</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2,653,440,877</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">6,930,332,146</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">December-2002</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2,659,824,712</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">3,883,578,378</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2,588,985,751</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">5,691,594,786</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">December-2003</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">3,524,264,578</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">1,380,693,127</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2,992,906,972</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">4,078,332,123</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">December-2004</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2,838,397,433</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2,408,112,170</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">5,124,465,220</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">5,585,793,826</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">December-2005</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">6,847,815,316</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">1,758,826,242</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">6,557,011,293</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">7,692,571,349</span></p></td></tr></table><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(folios 334 to 336 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">24) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">That as a result of the request for information filed by Banco BCT on November 4, 2011, SUGEF issued certificate number SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 at 2:00 p.m. on January 25, 2012, a document in which it indicates that the data </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">“…correspond to the accounting and financial information submitted by Banco BCT S.A. and Financiera Londres Ltda, to this Superintendencia, and that is available in our databases for the periods between 1999 and 2002, both inclusive…” </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">and which refers to</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline"> “the balances of the requested accounting accounts, as well as the maturities at 3 months in national currency and foreign currency” (folios 342 to 346 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">25) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">That by written submission dated February 22, 2012, the representative of Banco BCT presented before the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, not only the copy of the certificate issued by SUGEF on January 25, 2012, referred to in the preceding section, but also, based on said information, proceeded to determine the percentages for the liquidity factor for each of the audited fiscal years, dividing the total of 3-month maturities average adjusted for volatility by the total average of the financial liability, obtaining the following result:</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span> </span></p><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin-left:156.15pt; border:1pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse"><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Fiscal Period</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Liquidity Factor</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">1999</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">23.20%</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">2000</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">29.46%</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">2001</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">25.28%</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">2002</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">36.54%</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">2003</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">29.55%</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">2004</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">32.64%</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">2005</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">35.87%</span></p></td></tr></table><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(folios 357 to 364 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">26) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">That by resolution number TFA-114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, at 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, it was ordered: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">“…The nullity filed is declared without merit. The appealed resolution is revoked with respect to the adjustments: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a">(…) B) TAXABLE INCOME DECLARED AS NON-TAXABLE, (Interest income</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a"> obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies) (…)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">. The appealed resolution is partially revoked with respect to the adjustment for NON-DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH NON-TAXABLE INCOME AND DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH TAXABLE INCOME, and the following percentages must be accepted as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income: 23.20% for 1999, 29.46% for 2000, 25.28% for 2001, 36.54% for 2002, 29.55% for 2003, 32.64% for 2004, and 35.87% for 2005, for the concept of “financial expenses interest” for raising funds to constitute liquidity reserves, rejected by the Tax Administration. In all other respects, the appealed resolution is confirmed. The administration A Quo shall proceed to liquidate and notify said act to the taxpayer in accordance with the provisions of Articles 40 and 163 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios…” (folios 1 to 52 of volume II of the determinative administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">27) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">That</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">resolution number TFA-114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, at 11:00 a.m. on March 30, 2012, was communicated to the Dirección de Fiscalización de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales of the Dirección General de Tributación, on October 31, 2011 </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(folio 432 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">28) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">By resolutions number DGH-042-2012 at 11:30 a.m. on December 12, 2012; DGH-029-2013 at 3:33 p.m. on August 23, 2013; DGH-030-2013 at 3:35 p.m. on August 23, 2013; and DGH-031-2013 at 3:43 p.m. on August 23, 2013, the Dirección General de Hacienda ordered the forgiveness of interest in favor of Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">, Banco BAC San José, Banco Scotiabank de Costa Rica, S.A., and Banca Promérica, S.A., generated by the ex officio determinations made by the Subgerencia de Fiscalización of the Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes regarding the fiscal periods between 1992 and 2005 </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">(images 123 to 149 of the judicial file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">29) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#090c14">That by payment vouchers dated April 2, 2014, Banco BCT S.A.</span> canceled the amounts determined by the Tax Administration for income tax corresponding to the fiscal periods from 1999 to 2005, given that —as indicated by one of the legal representatives of Banco BCT during the clean-up phase of the oral and public trial hearing held on December 10, 2019— the Tax Administration decided to condone the interest on those items for Banco BCT (folios 226 to 231 of the judicial file; see digital record of that proceeding contained in the associated documents folder of the virtual judicial file); 30) That by official letter DJMH-229-2013 of February 7, 2013, the Legal Directorate of the Ministry of Finance forwarded the recommendation for a partial declaration of detriment (declaratoria de lesividad) against resolution number TFA-114-2012 of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal, based on the opinion issued by the General Directorate of Taxation in official letter DGT-598-2012 of July 18, 2012 (folios 1 to 22 of volume VI of the administrative file); 31) That by resolution number 139-2013 of February 22, 2013, the Minister of Finance declared detrimental to the fiscal and economic interests of the State the aforementioned pronouncement number TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal in favor of Banco BCT (folios 23 to 34 of volume VI of the administrative file); 32) That both the liquidity reserve (reserva de liquidez) and the minimum legal reserve requirement (encaje mínimo legal) correspond to an amount that must be "reserved" by financial intermediation institutions to guarantee their liquidity, and that the difference between the two lies in which type of institution must hold one or the other (folios 325 and 326 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file; 30 and 31 of volume VI of the administrative file and the digital record of the statements of expert witnesses Nombre115097 and Nombre3984, given at the trial hearing held on 12-10-2019, which is contained in the associated documents folder of the virtual judicial file); 33) That the asset-liability matching (calce de plazos) corresponds to a methodology for establishing a minimum liquidity factor for financial entities, which allows them to meet their obligations within the agreed terms in the course of their ordinary activity, through liquid assets that generate both taxable and non-taxable income (either because they are not subject to income tax or because they are taxed with another tax) and that therefore, from a technical point of view, it bears no relation to the so-called liquidity reserve (digital record of the statements of expert witnesses Nombre115097 and Nombre3984, given at the trial hearing of 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual judicial file); 34) That Banco BCT, for the fiscal periods between 1999 and 2002, did not maintain an accounting system that allowed for the separation of non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income, and deductible expenses associated with taxable income, while in the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 it applied the so-called Nombre67376 methodology (see folios 71, 134, and 135 of volume III of the "worksheets" administrative file; 01, 05, and 06 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file; digital record of the statement of expert witness Nombre115097 given at the trial hearing of 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual judicial file); 35) That the financial expenses for the minimum liquidity factor or the asset-liability matching related to one- or three-month investments made by Banco BCT were recognized by the Tax Administration when applying proportionality to the total financial expenses, after first subtracting in each case the amount for the minimum legal reserve requirement (folios 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 81, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 148, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 170, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 202, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, and 212 in the upper right margin of volume I of the "worksheets" administrative file; 5 to 8 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file; digital record of the statement of expert witness Nombre3984 at the trial hearing of 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual judicial file); 36) That SUGEF expressly stated that the methodology was not authorized for tax purposes but rather for accounting purposes (-see folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; evidentiary file of "Report DFOE-IP-06-2005"); 37) That there is no act of the Tax Administration, in the terms of article 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) —in force at that date—, by which Banco BCT was expressly and directly authorized to use the Nombre67376 methodology and to rectify its tax returns for fiscal periods prior to the year 2003 based on it (this is not evident from folios 82 to 86 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file; see folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; evidentiary file of "Report DFOE-IP-06-2005"); 38) That Banco BCT has been an active member of the Costa Rican Banking Association (Asociación Bancaria Costarricense, ABC) since November 21, 1983 (folio 170 of the judicial file); 39) That the lawsuit for declaration of detriment (lesividad) was filed by the representative of the State on February 20, 2014 (folio 259 of the judicial file).- IIo.- UNPROVEN FACTS. Of relevance to this proceeding, the following are considered not proven: a) That the income declared as non-taxable and which was considered by the Tax Administration within the assessment process (proceso determinativo) as taxable, was not a product of a Costa Rican source and the Bank's ordinary business, within the national territory (there is no evidence in the file); b) That Banco BCT, S.A., for the implementation of the methodology called ABC, carried out the procedure established in article 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (There is no evidence in this regard in the case file); c) That the Tax Administration failed to comply with what was ordered in report DFOE-IP-06-2005, issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic (this is not evident from the evidence submitted to the case file).

IIIo.- SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING. The lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, S.A. seeks a declaration of absolute nullity of the statement of charges; the assessment resolutions (resoluciones determinativas), issued in the audit procedure for income tax for the periods from 1999 to 2005, as well as resolution 114-2012 issued by the TFA. In the alternative, it requests a declaration of partial nullity of the statement of charges; the assessment resolutions, issued in the audit procedure for income tax for the periods from 1999 to 2005, as well as resolution 114-2012 issued by the TFA, in everything that is detrimental to its represented party. In the alternative, if it is deemed that there is no ground for nullity, a declaration of State liability for lawful conduct and abnormal functioning is sought, it being appropriate to request that, due to the exceptional intensity of the harm and the small proportion of those affected, it be declared that there is no basis whatsoever for the imposition of interest and penalties related to the tax adjustments made in the challenged acts. Likewise, that the State be ordered to pay both costs, in the event that any of the nullifying claims are upheld. Finally, it requests the return of the amounts paid on April 2, 2014, plus their respective interest generated from the time of payment until the date of their effective refund. LESIVIDAD: The annulment of the ruling of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal, First Chamber, No. 114-2012, of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, is sought, for being contrary to law and detrimental to the public and economic interests of the State, only regarding the reversal of the following adjustments: A) Income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies; B) Financial expenses associated with the "liquidity reserves." This is because it considers that —in general terms— these formal actions are contrary to the principles of legitimate expectations (confianza legítima), good faith, legal certainty, sanctity of one's own acts; non-retroactivity; to the provisions of articles 10 and 12 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System; 129 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica; 136 of the General Law of Public Administration; 3 of Executive Decree number 28590-H; and to what was considered in judgment number 94-2013-V of 1:30 p.m. on September 26, 2013. For its part, in the lawsuit filed by the State, the annulment of the ruling of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal, First Chamber, No. 114-2012, of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, is sought, for being contrary to law and detrimental to the public and economic interests of the State, only regarding the reversal of the following adjustments: A) Income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies; B) Financial expenses associated with the "liquidity reserves." Specifically, in that the Fiscal Tribunal, despite expressly acknowledging in considerando VIII that it shares all the arguments that allow the Tax Administration to apply the principle of proportionality to financial entities, regulated in article 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its Regulations, illegally deviates from such legal foundations and in absolute contradiction with what was developed in considerando VI, recognizes "... the deduction of a sum (different from that of proportionality discussed in the previous considerando, representative of those interests corresponding to the payment for bank deposits from public investments, and which have in turn been arranged or placed in temporary investments for the purposes of forming liquidity reserves, as has been repeatedly resolved…". Likewise, regarding the income obtained from operations and investments made with companies abroad, it maintains that the concept of territoriality is not limited to the physical —geographical— nature, but rather corresponds to an idea of an economic order, which cannot be separated from the activity generating the profits, since it is closely linked to the economic structure of the active subject, regardless of the origin or provenance of the funds used in the businesses and services, and regardless of whether these are habitual or occasional.

Consequently, it argues that what the Tax Administration taxes with the income tax is precisely that income obtained from investments abroad, which were forged with Costa Rican capital and by virtue of the financial intermediation activity carried out by the banking entity, an activity that is managed entirely within Costa Rican territory, is linked and connected to the economic structure of our country, and is therefore Costa Rican-source income that must pay the corresponding tax.

**IV.- PREREQUISITES FOR THE LESIVITY PROCESS.** In this case, the State seeks a declaration of nullity of resolution number 114-2012 issued by the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Tax Administrative Court (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo), First Chamber at 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2011, for being contrary to law and harmful (lesiva) to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, **only** with respect to the revocation of the decision by the then Tax Administration of Large Taxpayers (Administración Tributaria de Grandes Contribuyentes), regarding the following **adjustments: i)** For non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income: financial expenses associated with liquidity reserves; b) For taxable income declared as non-taxable (interest income obtained from operations and investments made abroad). From this standpoint, it is necessary to briefly establish compliance with the various prerequisites imposed by the legal system for the filing of a lesivity process (proceso de lesividad), since the absence of any one of these elements would preclude and make unnecessary a substantive review. Generally speaking, lesivity (lesividad) constitutes a jurisdictional mechanism by which the Administration seeks the suppression of its own act, which, in principle, generates a favorable effect for a third-party recipient. From that standpoint, in this type of dispute, lesivity is subjective in nature, as it seeks the annulment of an act that grants a right or, in general, a beneficial situation to a person. This concept is codified in Article 34 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), a provision that sets forth the prior elements and procedural regulations for this concept. However, it is also referenced in Article 173 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). From the perspective of procedural prerequisites, subjective, objective, procedural, and temporal conditions are imposed. Regarding the subjective aspect, active standing is granted to the Administration that issued the challenged act, while the passive legitimate party is the recipient of the effects of the act, i.e., the one who obtains its benefits. Regarding the objective aspect, lesivity is constituted as a mechanism for the legal elimination of administrative acts that are substantially non-compliant with the legal system, i.e., acts that suffer from some level of invalidity, whether absolute or relative, in any of its typologies (articles 128, 158, 165 and concordant articles of the aforementioned General Law No. 6227). In this vein, the Administration must declare that act harmful (lesivo) to the public interest, which must be established within a framework of internal actions by the administration that are essential to formulate the action. Indeed, in procedural terms, it is required that the supreme highest-ranking official (jerarca máximo supremo) of the respective Public Administration declare the lesivity of the act, whether due to harm to economic, fiscal, or other interests arising from the public interest, for which purpose, they must have a supporting legal-technical opinion to sustain that determination. Unlike other mechanisms for the suppression of public acts, it does not require a hearing for the third party, but only actions within the Administration, and it is within the judicial process that the third party may present their defense arguments. However, when the act emanates from the State (see Article 1 of the aforementioned General Law), i.e., from the Central Administration, the lawsuit may only be filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) (Article 16 of Law No. Placa494), at the prior request of the supreme highest-ranking official and after an internal declaration of lesivity, detailing the reasons for that assessment. As for the temporal dimension, the procedural rules establish a one-year period starting from the issuance of the act (not from its notification) to declare it harmful (lesivo) to the public interest, and after that declaration (and not from the expiration of that first year), a one-year period is granted to file the contentious-administrative action as a fatal statute of limitations (plazo de caducidad), except in cases of acts with absolute nullity, in which case, the declaration of lesivity may be made as long as its effects persist, with the aforementioned year running from the definitive cessation of those effects. In that scenario, any favorable judgment shall order nullity only for the future inapplicability of the act, constituting an express exception to the retroactivity regime for absolute nullities established by Article 171 of the General Law of Public Administration. The exception to this one-year temporal aspect is configured for the protection of public domain (tutela de dominio público), in which case the lesivity action is not subject to any time limit due to the application of the general clause of imprescriptibility for this type of property as derived from Article 261 of the Civil Code (Código Civil). Now, **in tax matters**, the statute of limitations (acción de caducidad), in addition to the aforementioned rules, is regulated in Article 165 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) (in force at that time). In this fiscal area, pursuant to Article 41 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, the maximum period to initiate the proceeding shall be the same as the statute of limitations (plazo de prescripción) imposed by the legal system for the respective substantive right, i.e., 3 or 5 years (Article 51 of the Tax Code [Código Tributario], in force at that time) for assessment powers and 4 years for penalty matters (Article 71 ibidem, version in force at that time). Moreover, in this fiscal dynamic, since the natural highest-ranking official (jerarca natural) is barred from the power to review the acts of inferior Tax Administrations (Article 102, subsections b and d of Law No. 6227)—a competence that has been granted by imperative law to the Tax Administrative Court, as derived from Article 156 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (in force at that time), constituting in that appeal phase an improper monophasic hierarchy (control no jerárquico)—it is clear that the period to declare lesivity that runs against the Minister of Finance (competence sustained by their status as the supreme highest-ranking official of both the reviewed body and the non-hierarchical controller, both parts of the same structure of that Administration), **is calculated from the moment said improper monophasic controlling body informs the lower Administration (Administración A quo) of its decision by virtue of its appellate competence**. Before that moment, the natural highest-ranking official is materially and legally unable to know of an act that may be potentially harmful (lesivo) to the fiscal, economic, or public interests they must protect, and therefore, unable to exercise their powers to declare that action harmful (lesiva). **Of course, when the act deemed irregular derives from an inferior administration, not being in the aforementioned scenario of improper monophasic hierarchy, such exceptionality is not applicable, and the period is calculated from the adoption of the act**. In this case, from the analysis of the case records, it is concluded that the internal declaration of lesivity meets the indicated prerequisites. As has been established, resolution number TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, which is requested to be declared partially null, **was notified to the Large National Taxpayers Audit Directorate (Dirección de Fiscalización de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales) of the General Directorate of Taxation (Dirección General de Tributación), on March 20, 2012** *(folios 372 to 432 of volume V of the administrative file "Determinativo")*. Likewise, in official communication DJMH-229-2013 of February 7, 2013, the Legal Directorate of the Ministry of Finance (Dirección Jurídica del Ministerio de Hacienda) sent the recommendation for a partial declaration of lesivity against resolution number TFA-114-2012 of the Tax Administrative Court, based on the opinion issued by the General Directorate of Taxation, in official communication DGT-598-2012 of July 18, 2012 *(folios 1 to 22 of volume VI of the administrative file)*. Based on this legal-technical opinion, by resolution number 139-2013 of February 22, 2013, **the Minister of Finance declared harmful (lesivo) to the fiscal and economic interests of the State the aforementioned pronouncement number TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012,** issued by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Court in favor of Banco BCT *(folios 23 to 34 of volume VI of the administrative file)*. As can be observed, this declaration of lesivity was issued within one year after the improper monophasic controlling body informed the lower Administration (Administración A quo) of its decision by virtue of its appellate competence. From that moment, i.e., March 20, 2012, the natural highest-ranking official was materially and legally able to know of an act that could be potentially harmful (lesivo) to the fiscal, economic, or public interests they must protect, and therefore, enabled to exercise their powers to declare that formal conduct harmful (lesiva) *—solely insofar as it recognized as deductible expenses those of a financial nature associated with liquidity reserves, and for revoking the decision of the lower body regarding income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies—*, as they ultimately did by issuing resolution **114-2012** **of March 12, 2012**. Finally, **the lawsuit subject to this proceeding was filed on February 20, 2014, i.e., within one year after the administrative declaration of lesivity** *(folio 259 of the judicial file)* **.** Furthermore, the lawsuit is filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic against the banking entity that benefits from the partially challenged act, thus, in terms of the legitimizing scope, both active and passive, the referenced requirements are met. Lastly, and contrary to what the representatives of Banco BCT maintain, the resolution by which the Minister of Finance declared harmful (lesiva) to the economic and fiscal interests of the State the pronouncement number TFA-114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Court, is not contrary to the provisions of Article 136 of the General Law of Public Administration, as evidenced by the following partial transcription of that act: *“…it is improper to recognize for THE TAXPAYER Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima, the income obtained through operations and investments abroad with capital forged in the national territory, as part of its activity, which is managed and developed within the national territory, so that the income generated by such investments is not capital located outside the national territory but rather constitutes monetary sums generated through the intermediation activity that the same entity carries out in Costa Rica (…) In the present matter, the taxpayer Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima is obligated to build (sic) the reserve for the concept of minimum legal reserve requirement (encaje mínimo legal), but is not obligated to constitute the liquidity reserve (reserva de liquidez), as established by the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Banco Central de Costa Rica) (…) Therefore, having clearly established that the minimum legal reserve requirement and the liquidity reserve are not synonyms, this Office considers that by the Tax Administrative Court interpreting both concepts as the same, the expense for the same concept would be duplicated…” (folios 22 to 35 of volume VI of the administrative file). Consequently, the fact that the defendant entity does not agree with the grounds used by the Minister of Finance to support their decision to partially declare harmful (lesiva) resolution TFA 114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Court, does not imply a violation of the provisions of Article 136 of the General Law of Public Administration. Thus, the examination of the present action proceeds immediately below.

**V.- REGARDING THE FINANCIAL EXPENSES FOR LIQUIDITY RESERVES RECOGNIZED BY THE TAX ADMINISTRATIVE COURT TO BANCO POPULAR Y DE DESARROLLO COMUNAL.** This Court resolves as follows: **a) The erroneous use of the term liquidity reserve (reserva de liquidez) as a synonym for minimum liquidity factor (factor mínimo de liquidez), as the basis for the decision adopted by the TFA.** In the first instance and based on articles 62 and 117 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica), as well as the documents visible at folios 325 and 326 of volume V of the administrative file “determinativo”; 30 and 31 of volume VI of the administrative file, and in the testimony of expert witnesses Name115097 and Name3984 *—see digital recording of the trial hearing held on 12-10-2019, contained in the associated documents folder of the virtual file—*, this collegiate body considers that both the liquidity reserve (reserva de liquidez) and the minimum legal reserve requirement (encaje mínimo legal) correspond to an amount that must be *"reserved"* by financial intermediation institutions to guarantee their liquidity, and that the difference between them lies in which type of institution must maintain one or the other, therefore, technically a Bank could not be obligated to maintain both the minimum legal reserve requirement and the liquidity reserve, at least not as understood under the provisions of Article 117 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank. In the same vein, this Court considers that the maturity matching (calce de plazos) corresponds to a methodology to establish a minimum liquidity factor (factor de liquidez mínima) for financial entities, which allows them to meet their obligations within the agreed terms in the exercise of their ordinary activity, through liquid assets that generate both taxable and non-taxable income *(either because they are not subject to income tax, or because they are taxed with another tax)* and that therefore, they bear no relation from a technical point of view to the so-called liquidity reserve *(digital recording of the statements of expert witnesses Name115097 and Name3984, rendered at the trial hearing of 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file)*. Based on the foregoing, it is considered that Considerando IX of resolution TFA-114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Court, titled “Liquidity Reserve (Reserva de Liquidez)”, is contradictory to what was stated by that same body in Considerando VIII of that same pronouncement, regarding the analysis it performs concerning the topic of proportionality, and its application as established in articles 7 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) and 11 of its Regulations (Reglamento) *(see folios 401 to 430 of volume V of the administrative file "Determinativo")*. This is because, in Considerando VIII related to the “Application of the Proportionality Criterion and Consequent Rejection of Expenses Associated with Non-Taxable Income (Aplicación del Criterio de Proporcionalidad y Consecuente Rechazo de Gastos Asociados a Ingresos no Gravables)”, the Tax Administrative Court held—in pertinent part—that *“…**It must be emphasized that what was applied was appropriate, since all costs and expenses according to financial statements were used interchangeably to produce taxable and non-taxable income from profit tax** and therefore such expenses reported by the audited party cannot be applied solely to taxable income, but rather, to the totality of the income obtained in the fiscal periods under study, since it is evident that the total business-operational structure (technical, professional, and administrative) contemplates the planning, coordination, execution, and control, of all business activities and functions, aimed at achieving taxable and non-taxable income…” (folio 411 of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo"; the highlighting is not from the original); however, in Considerando IX called “Liquidity Reserves (Reservas de Liquidez)”, the Tax Administrative Court held that *“… **must be admitted and has been admitted, the deduction of a sum (different from the proportionality that was discussed in the previous Considerando), representative of those interests corresponding to the payment for bank deposits from public investments, and which in turn have been arranged or placed in temporary investments for the purpose of establishing liquidity reserves** (…) In accordance with what has been set forth up to this point and in relation to the topic of the constitution of liquidity reserves and the generation of financial expenses related to them, **and admitting as suitable and legal documentary evidence for the purposes of determining the admissible percentages to accept as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income**, and after reviewing the calculations made by the audited party, what is appropriate is to admit the percentages of 23.20%, 29.46%, 25.28%, 36.54%, 29.55%, 32.64% and 35.87%, according to the information certified by the General Superintendency of Financial Entities (Super Intendencia General de Entidades Financieras)…” (folios 425 to 429 of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo").* Notwithstanding the fact that this contradiction becomes evident again, when it is estimated in the final part of that same Considerando IX, that *“… The arguments related to the present aspect concerning the constitution of liquidity reserves, should not be applied to the taxpayer's claims regarding the admission of other operating and administrative expenses incurred in the audited fiscal periods as well, **since what is admitted under said concept is solely and by way of exception**, **as regards the interests related to the constitution of such liquidity reserves,** as has been extensively explained in this resolution, in addition to the fact that admitting such claims would violate the principle of proportionality applied in the case file and would be admitting, in contradiction to what is provided by law for this type of taxpayer, the application of territorial-source income (renta producto) in which it is possible to deduct all expenses related to the taxable income…” (folio 429 verso of volume VI of the administrative file "determinativo")*.

On the other hand, that single-phase, non-hierarchical controller of legality also incurs in a technical inaccuracy, as it is evident that it uses the terms liquidity reserve and minimum legal reserve requirement as if they were the same concept, even maintaining that "...all the arguments of this Court regarding the admissibility of those financial expenses related to the constitution of liquidity reserves are based on the same tax principles that the administration has used for the purposes of the minimum legal reserve requirement..." (folio 428 back of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo"), an assertion that would be acceptable only if the Tax Administrative Court were referring to the liquidity reserve that those financial intermediation entities not obligated to maintain the immobilized funds of the minimum legal reserve requirement must maintain; but the truth is that in the present case, it refers to the maturity matching or the minimum liquidity factor, which is not the same as a liquidity reserve. This collegiate body considers that a technical inaccuracy of this nature cannot be overlooked, even less so when dealing with the administrative body that, due to the nature of the function it performs (single-phase, non-hierarchical controller of legality in tax matters), is obligated to be technically and conceptually precise. Consequently, the discussion regarding whether or not it is appropriate to recognize as deductible expenses the minimum liquidity factor or the maturity matching related to the one- or three-month investments made by Banco BCT from excess liquidity, and whether such recognition must be carried out through the proportionality established in Articles 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its Regulation, initially lacks interest, since the Tax Administrative Court does not refer to those points but rather to the liquidity reserve; without prejudice to the fact that said body also omitted to indicate in its resolution whether the minimum liquidity factor or the maturity matching were or were not contemplated in the cases to which the Tax Administration had already applied proportionality (see in a similar vein, judgments number 95-2009-V of 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019, and 103-2019-V of 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019, issued by the Fifth Section of the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal). b) On the scope of judgment 94-2013-V in the specific case. Notwithstanding the foregoing in the preceding section and given the arguments raised by the representative of Banco BCT, this Court deems it necessary to determine the scope of judgment 94-2013-V delivered at 1:30 p.m. on September 26, 2013, by Section V of the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal, and based on the foregoing, to establish whether or not it is applicable in the present case. In this regard, as stated by the attorneys-in-fact of Banco BCT, in said pronouncement it is held that "...there exists a series of rules and principles that govern the activity of financial intermediation, so the examination of the issue requires a comprehensive treatment in accordance with the fulfillment of one of the objectives of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, which is the promotion 'of a stable, efficient, and competitive financial intermediation system.' (Article 2 of Law 7558). For the purpose of fulfilling said objective, the concerned Administration has established a series of regulations in order to control the operation and supervision of financial entities and to promote favorable conditions to strengthen the liquidity and solvency of the financial system. It is in this line that such entities are subject to supervision by the Superintendency of Financial Entities, which counts among its powers that of overseeing their actions, always guided by the principle that they must maintain a high level of solvency and a low level of risk, thereby strengthening the liquidity and stability of the intermediation system. Hence, a series of regulations are issued whose purpose is to ensure that financial entities adjust to certain efficiency parameters. One of these regulatory provisions is precisely Agreement SUGEF-24-00, approved by the National Council for Supervision of the Financial System by means of Article 8 of the minutes of session number 197-2000, held on December eleven, two thousand, in which the Regulation for Judging the Economic-Financial Situation of Supervised Entities was approved. Said regulatory body defines six different types of risks: solvency risk, liquidity risk, risk of variations in interest rates, exchange risk, credit risk, and operational risk. When referring to liquidity risk, it indicates that this 'Originates when the financial entity does not possess the liquid resources necessary to meet its obligations to third parties in the short term.' From the content of this definition, as well as from the previously reviewed objectives of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, it is clearly inferred that companies or entities engaged in financial intermediation activity are obligated to maintain a minimum level of liquidity, as only this allows for a stable financial system, since otherwise the level of risk would increase. This is evidenced even more if one takes into consideration that one of the elements taken into account by the Superintendency when judging the economic-financial situation of the entities is precisely liquidity (...) It is, then, an obligation that also enables its operation, since otherwise, the entity would be exposed to a negative rating by the Superintendency, and an abnormal functioning of the entity would occur. Thus, liquidity being an essential operating rule in this type of entity, it is clear to this Deciding Body that the costs involved in fulfilling this obligation are constituted as useful and necessary to generate taxable income (renta gravable), and therefore translate into deductible expenses, as per the provisions of Articles 1, 7, 8, and 14 of the Income Tax Law..." (the highlighting is not from the original). Now, in that same judgment, it is indicated that "...Articles 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its Regulation provide for the treatment that must be given in cases where taxpayers, when developing a profitable activity, generate taxable and non-taxable income and expenses associated with both types of income. This is relevant if we recall that, according to Articles 7 and 14 of Law No. 7092, the taxable income is the net income of the taxpayers, that is, 'the result of deducting from the gross income the useful, necessary, and pertinent costs and expenses to produce the profit or benefit, and the other outlays expressly authorized by this law, duly backed by receipts and recorded in the accounting,' from which it follows that expenses linked to non-taxable income cannot be deducted, and that in the case of outlays linked to taxable activities but which are also associated with non-taxable activities, the deduction must be made proportionally. The regulations allow the taxpayer to establish that proportion; however, when, as in this case, the system used by the latter is not reliable, it is up to the Administration to apply the system established in the legal system. In this sense, the final paragraph of Article 7 of Law No. 7092 provides: 'Article 7.- (...) When the authorized costs, expenses, or outlays are incurred to produce indistinctly taxable or exempt income, only the proportion corresponding to the taxable income shall be deducted.' And for its part, the first paragraph of Article 11 of the Regulation establishes: 'Article 11.- Income is determined by deducting from gross income the useful, necessary, and pertinent costs and expenses permitted by law. When the expenses, costs, and outlays are incurred to produce indistinctly taxable and exempt income, only the proportion corresponding to the taxable income must be deducted. When the taxpayer cannot duly justify a different proportion, the sum resulting from applying the percentage obtained by relating the taxable income to the total income must be deducted.' Consequently, this Collegiate Body considers that the application of the proportionality system carried out is appropriate and in accordance with the provisions of the Law and its Regulation, where it is clearly established that in those cases in which the taxpayer has outlays linked to taxable and non-taxable income, and cannot adequately justify a proportion different from that established in the regulation, the formula provided for that purpose shall be applied..." (the highlighting is not from the original). Consequently, while it is true that the Tax Administration could recognize the expenses related to the fulfillment of the minimum liquidity factor, in a proportion different from that established in the final part of Article 11 of the Regulation to the Income Tax Law; it is also true that those expenses must be duly justified in the accounting records of the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo), in order to determine which are the non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income and which correspond to deductible expenses associated with taxable income, which is essential in those cases -such as the one at hand- in which Banco BCT has produced indistinctly taxable or exempt income.

The foregoing acquires relevance in the specific case, since in this type of tax, it is the taxpayer itself that, through its return, determines the amount to be paid for said tribute. However, within the framework of the liquidation of a tax obligation such as the one under examination, the Tax Administration proceeds to verify the data in order to confirm the elements of the filed return with the data in the hands of the taxpayer, and it is on the latter that the burden of proof falls for those facts related to the reduction of the tax base (base imponible). Such is the sense of the provisions established in numerals 128 and 140 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, 19 of the General Regulation on Tax Management, Oversight, and Collection, Executive Decree number 29264 of January twenty-one, 2001 (all in force at that time). Article 19 of the referred regulation expressly stated that: "...The burden of proof falls on the Tax Administration regarding the constitutive facts of the tax obligation, while it falls on the taxpayer, responsible party, or declarant regarding the impeditive, modificative, or extinctive facts of the tax obligation. In this sense, it will be the responsibility of the latter, as the case may be, to demonstrate the facts that constitute their costs, expenses, liabilities, tax credits, exemptions, non-taxable events, deductions, and in general the tax benefits they claim exist in their favor." So that the validity of the self-determination made by the taxpayer regarding non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income, and consequently of the deductible expenses associated with taxable income, is subject to verification, and it falls to the taxpayer, in this case Banco BCT, to prove the accuracy of the self-determined amount, which must be demonstrated through the accounting system of said banking entity, which, necessarily, must conform to generally accepted accounting principles, according to the provisions of precept 57 of the Regulation to the Income Tax Law, Executive Decree No. 18445-H, should clearly reflect the amount of non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income. Without prejudice, of course, to the modifications to the Chart of Accounts for Financial Entities published in La Gaceta number 77 of Wednesday, April 21, 2004, a document according to which account code number 819 is added, allowing the control and identification of non-deductible expenses associated with income not subject to the payment of Income Tax (folios 125 and 126 of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo").

In the present case, it is taken as proven that Banco BCT, for the fiscal periods between 1999 and 2002, did not maintain an accounting system that allowed separating non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income, and deductible expenses associated with taxable income, while in the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 it applied the so-called methodology Nombre67376 (see folios 71, 134, and 135 volume III of the administrative file "hojas de trabajo"; 01, 05, and 06 of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo"; digital backup of the testimony of expert witness Nombre115097 rendered in the trial hearing of 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file); points that in any case, are accepted by the banking entity itself both in a brief of May 8, 2007, upon stating: "...For the calculation of expenses associated with non-taxable income in the amended Income Tax returns corresponding to fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and for fiscal periods 2003, 2004, and 2005, the methodology agreed upon by the Costa Rican Banking Association was used..."; and in a memorial of December 5, 2006, upon indicating: "... Year 2004 and Year 2005. The methodology agreed upon by the Costa Rican Banking Association in 2003 was used for the calculation of financial expenses, administrative expenses, and the exchange differential expense (...) Year 2003. It was calculated with the excess liquidity determined through the balances of the one-month maturity matching, deducting from the reserve requirement account balances the balance of loans to state banks, adjusted for the volatility of daily current account balances (...) Years 2002, 2001, 2000, and 1999. Expenses associated with non-taxable income were not calculated..." (folios 71, 134, and 135 of volume III of the administrative file "hojas de trabajo"; the highlighting is from the original). In this manner, given the omission on the part of Banco BCT to have a methodology in accordance with the parameters required by the legal system, that is, one with support that allows clearly determining the totality of the outlays linked to non-taxable income, and therefore those linked to taxable income, during the fiscal periods between 1999 and 2005, the concerned Administration was compelled to apply the questioned system provided for in numerals 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its Regulation, for those taxpayers that generate indistinctly income taxable or not with said tribute. In other words, although the legal system allows the taxpayer to establish that proportion -specifically regarding the expenses for fulfilling the minimum liquidity factor and the maturity matching, which is what is of interest in the specific case-, when the system used by the former is not reliable -as in the present case-, it falls to the Administration to apply the system established in the legal system. In addition to the foregoing, from the "hojas de trabajo" and the transfer of charges, it is evident that the financial expenses for the minimum liquidity factor or the maturity matching related to the one- or three-month investments made by Banco BCT were recognized by the Tax Administration when applying proportionality to the total financial expenses, after previously subtracting in each case the amount for the minimum legal reserve requirement, an aspect that the Tax Administrative Court omitted to refer to in the challenged resolution, and which definitively caused it to make a double allocation of expenses for the same concept (folios 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 81, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 148, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 170, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 202, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, and 212 at the upper right margin of volume I of the administrative file "hojas de trabajo"; 5 to 8 of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo"; digital backup of the testimony of expert witness Nombre3984 in the trial hearing of 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file). For these reasons, the arguments raised by Banco BCT, in the sense that the accounting it presented in the audit procedure was not assessed by the Tax Administration, lack support. c) Regarding Official Letter number SUGEF 2207-201004134 of July 8, 2010, and certification SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883. In the first instance, it should be clarified that contrary to what was indicated by the Tax Administrative Court in recital (considerando) IX of resolution 114-2012, certification number SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 issued by SUGEF at 2:00 p.m. on January 25, 2012, is not the document by which said Superintendency answered the request for information posed by the Tax Administrative Court through interlocutory resolution number 084-2010 of 8:50 a.m. on April 28, 2010 (folios 325 to 327 of volume V of the administrative file “determinativo”). The foregoing acquires relevance in the specific case, for the reasons set forth below: i) By interlocutory resolution INTER No. 084-2010 of 8:50 a.m. on April 28, 2010, the Tax Administrative Court requested from SUGEF the following information related to Banco BCT: "...the amounts or quantities that the cited entity maintains in liquid assets or liquidity reserves, that allow it to meet its obligations within the agreed terms in its ordinary activity of financial intermediation. The foregoing is required in relation to fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. It is clarified that the previous request is regarding the referenced liquid assets and not the percentage corresponding to the legal reserve requirement that is maintained as a mandatory reserve in the Central Bank of Costa Rica (...) It is requested as pertinent, in case it is possible, the reference both of the amounts allocated for the constitution of such liquid assets, in relation to the public deposits by the financial entity, and the representative percentage between said deposits and the constitution of such liquid assets..." (folios 325 to 327 of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo"; the highlighting is not from the original); ii) In official letter SUGEF 2207-201004134 of July 8, 2010, the General Directorate of Technical Services of SUGEF indicated to the Instructing Judge of the Tax Administrative Court that "...We refer to the interlocutory resolution INTER No. 084-2010, received in this Superintendency on April 30, 2010, by which the following is requested in relation to the entity 'Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima': (...) In relation to the foregoing, we allow ourselves to indicate that the requested information is not required by the Superintendency in the terms indicated in your official letter. The 'Chart of Accounts for entities, groups, and financial conglomerates' establishes the accounting structure: classes, groups, accounts, subaccounts, and analytical accounts, that financial intermediaries must use. According to the Chart of Accounts, the entities must classify their accounts in the following classes: 110 availabilities (disponibilidades), 120 Investments in financial instruments, 130 Loan portfolio, 140 Accounts and commissions receivable, 150 Realizable assets, 160 Participation in the capital of other companies, 170 Furniture, fixtures, and equipment, 180 Other assets, 190 Investments in properties. Regarding class 110 'Availabilities' (Disponibilidades), in accordance with what the chart of accounts establishes, the same 'comprises the assets that, due to their liquidity, have immediate availability. Therefore, cash, precious metals and remittances in transit, demand deposits and current accounts in the Central Bank of Costa Rica, financial entities of the country and abroad, and those documents of immediate collection are included' (...) On the other hand, regarding class 120 'Investments in Financial Instruments', the chart of accounts establishes in the concept of this account that 'it represents a contract that simultaneously gives rise to a financial asset in one entity and a financial liability or an equity instrument in another company or entity, which may or may not be incorporated in a document, which, due to its own legal configuration and transmission regime, may be subject to negotiation in a financial market or in a recognized and duly regulated stock exchange' (...) Once the previous clarifications have been made, I proceed to send you the balance of accounts 110, 120, 211, and 213, as of December 31 of the years indicated, as reported to this Superintendency by the respective entity." | Período | Disponibilidades (110) | Inver.Inst.

Finac</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(120)</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Cap a la vista</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(211)</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Cap a plazo</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(213)</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Diciembre-1999</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">1.236.914.835</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2.963.804.478</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">688.952.534</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">250.397.008</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Diciembre-2000</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">1.926.335.170</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2.158.091.001</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2.301.013.310</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">8.291.497.126</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Diciembre-2001</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2.299.743.780</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">3.163.086.070</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2.653.440.877</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">6.930.332.146</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Diciembre-2002</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2.659.824.712</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">3.883.578.378</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2.588.985.751</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">5.691.594.786</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Diciembre-2003</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">3.524.264.578</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">1.380.693.127</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2.992.906.972</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">4.078.332.123</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Diciembre-2004</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2.838.397.433</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2.408.112.170</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-style:solid; border-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">5.124.465.220</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">5.585.793.826</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Diciembre-2005</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">6.847.815.316</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">1.758.826.242</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">6.557.011.293</span></p></td><td style="width:88.25pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; padding-right:3pt; padding-left:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">7.692.571.349</span></p></td></tr></table><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(folios 334 to 336 of volume</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">V of the "determinative" administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">iii) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">That as a result of the request for information filed by Banco BCT on November 4, 2011, SUGEF issued certificate number SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 at 2:00 p.m. on January 25, 2012, a document in which it indicates that the data </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">“…correspond to the accounting and financial information submitted by Banco BCT S.A. and Financiera Londres Ltda, to this Superintendency, and which is available in our databases for the periods from 1999 to 2002, both inclusive…” </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">and which refers to</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline"> “the balances of the requested accounting accounts, as well as the maturities at 3 months in national currency and foreign currency” (folios 342 to 346 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">iv) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">That by written submission dated February 22, 2012, the representative of Banco BCT presented before the Tax Administrative Court (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo), not only the copy of the certificate issued by SUGEF on January 25, 2012, referenced in the preceding section, but also, based on said information, proceeded to determine the percentages for liquidity factor for each of the audited fiscal years, dividing the total average 3-month maturities adjusted for volatility by the total average financial liability (pasivo financiero), obtaining the following result:</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span> </span></p><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin-left:156.15pt; border:1pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse"><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Fiscal Period</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Liquidity Factor</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">1999</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">23.20%</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">2000</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">29.46%</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">2001</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">25.28%</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">2002</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">36.54%</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">2003</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">29.55%</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">2004</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">32.64%</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">2005</span></p></td><td style="width:73.15pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:1pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:1pt; padding-right:3.5pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="text-decoration:underline">35.87%</span></p></td></tr></table><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(folios 357 to 364 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">v)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> From the foregoing, it is evident that the response to the request for information made by the TFA on April 28, 2010, was not addressed by SUGEF through certificate number SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 at 2:00 p.m. on January 25, 2012, as stated by the Tax Administrative Court in the resolution under challenge </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(folio 429 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">; but rather through official letter</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline"> SUGEF 2207-201004134 of July 8, 2010,</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> in which the Directorate General of Technical Services of SUGEF indicated - in pertinent part - that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">"In relation to the foregoing, we hereby indicate that the requested information is not required by the Superintendency in the terms indicated in your official letter";</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">for which reason, the percentages that the Tax Administrative Court recognized for “financial expenses interest” incurred by the raising of resources to constitute liquidity reserves by Banco BCT,</span><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">was not a percentage given by SUGEF, but rather corresponds to an operation carried out by Banco BCT itself</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">, and which </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#0a0a0a">does not prove to be an adequate benchmark to establish the quantum of the expense associated with a reserve requirement (encaje) or a reserve </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0a0a0a">- in the terms of the decision handed down by the Tax Administrative Court in resolution 114-2012 -</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#0a0a0a">, since these two concepts correspond, as has been stated, to sums from which the entity divests itself, separating them from those others that, according to its normal course of business, it may use. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0a0a0a">d) Name14412. </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#0a0a0a">Based on the foregoing, this collegiate body considers that resolution number TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, regarding considerando IX and the operative part related to that aspect, con</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#0b0b0b">tains defects generating absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) in both the grounds and the content, insofar as the premises from which it started -grounds- to decide in the aforementioned manner -content- were not in conformity with the legal system. This is because </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0b0b0b">it is</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline"> contradictory</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> with the very thesis that the Tax Administrative Court put forward regarding the application of the proportionality criterion; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">imprecise in its terminology</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">, by referring to diverse legal concepts indiscriminately, generating uncertainty for the Administration and the administered party; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">and omitted by recognizing</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> on a liquidity reserve that is not such, deductible expenses, overlooking the fact that concerning the minimum legal reserve requirement, the respective percentage for each of the audited fiscal years had already been recognized, and concerning the other financial expenses, the proportionality of Article 7 of the Income Tax Law (Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta) and Article 11 of its regulations had been applied to them. Therefore, pursuant to the terms of the decision in the challenged formal conduct number TFA 114-2012, a double recognition of financial expenses was made.</span></p> Consequently, the partial absolute nullity is declared, as being harmful to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal at 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline\">only insofar as it orders the acceptance as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income, the percentages of 23.20% for 1999, 29.46% for 2000, 25.28% for 2001, 36.54% for 2002, 29.55% for 2003, 32.64% for 2004, and 35.87% for 2005, for the concept of “financial expenses interest” for the raising of resources to constitute liquidity reserves in favor of Banco BCT, S.A.</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">(see, in a similar vein, judgments 95-2019-V of 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V of 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019; and 44-2019-IV of 8:27 a.m. on June 6, 2019, all from the Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal)</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">. </span> <span style=\"font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span> <span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline\">VI.- REGARDING </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c\">INCOME OBTAINED FROM OPERATIONS AND INVESTMENTS CONDUCTED WITH FOREIGN COMPANIES.</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f\"> F</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">irstly, what is under discussion is</span><span> </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">the territoriality of the income.</span><span> </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">In this regard, Article 1 of the Income Tax Law states that income, earnings, or benefits from a Costa Rican source, those arising from services rendered, goods located, or capital utilized in the national territory, obtained during the fiscal period in accordance with the provisions of the law, are subject to the tax. The State's representative is correct that this is an aspect that has been addressed by judgments issued in this jurisdiction, as well as by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in the judgments cited in her complaint filing brief, specifically in resolution 671-F-S1-2010 of nine hours ten minutes on May twenty, two thousand ten, when it states that to define territoriality, the circumstances in which the income originates must be assessed. In that sense, said Chamber has considered that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">"…</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c\"> according to what will be set forth, the direct defect alleged is not evident; hence, the arguments outlined cannot be accepted. According to what was indicated by the challenger, canon 1 of the LIR was improperly applied or erroneously interpreted by the Tribunal; given that it was interpreted that the </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070b\">“</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c\"> overnight</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070b\">”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c\"> operations have a territorial nature and therefore are subject to taxation. The rule in question, as relevant, expresses</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070b\">“…”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03060a\"> ARTICLE 1.- Tax covered by the law, taxable event, and taxable matter. A tax is established on the profits of companies and individuals who carry out lucrative activities. The taxable event of the tax on the profits referred to in the preceding paragraph is the perception of income in cash or in kind, continuous or occasional, from any Costa Rican source. This tax also levies income, continuous or eventual, from a Costa Rican source, perceived or accrued by individuals or legal entities domiciled in the country</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070b\">…”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03060a\"> From said norm, it can be concluded that Costa Rica has a territorial tax system and from which an objective element is imposed regarding the activities subject to said tax levy, namely, the principle of </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070b\">territoriality</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03060a\">. In accordance with that principle, for income to be taxed, it must </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070b\">originate</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03060a\"> on national soil; what is important is that the service rendered, the good located, or the capital utilized has its genesis in the country.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c\"> Now, to determine if the profits must be taxed in accordance with that cited element of territoriality, this deciding body has repeatedly stated that it is necessary to take into consideration the place where that income originates, using for this the concept of Costa Rican source. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03060a\">Income from a Costa Rican source must be understood as income or benefits arising from services rendered, goods located, or capital utilized in the national territory.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c\"> In this sense, see ruling no. 617-2010 of 9 hours 10 minutes on May 20, 2010, and no. 945 of 10 hours on December 7, 2005. (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Res: 000326-A-S1-2017, of ten hours fifty-five minutes on March twenty-three, two thousand seventeen. The highlighting does not correspond to the original). </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">For its part, in judgment number 94-2009 issued by Section VII of this Tribunal at two p.m. on September thirty, two thousand nine, it was</span><span> </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">held that: "</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">The principle of territoriality is not limited to a merely spatial reference, but rather encompasses all those cases in which the activity carried out by the taxpayer generates income directly linked to the structure or economic source from which it derives, that is, the Costa Rican territory and economic structure</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline\">." </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">Consequently, it is not a matter, then, that by the mere circumstance of there being income produced abroad, its exoneration operates automatically, by application of the rule of extraterritoriality, but rather, on the contrary, the conditions surrounding the matter must be analyzed. Based on the foregoing, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#040609\">this Tribunal considers that indeed, as determined by the Tax Administration in </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a\">resolutions DT10R-058-08 of 12:00 p.m. on April 30, 2008; AU10R-076-08 of 12:00 p.m. on June 3, 2008, both issued by the Large Taxpayers Administration of the General Directorate of Taxation, and TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#040609\">, income derived from</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#040609\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#040609\"> operations carried out with capital from Costa Rican sources, as occurs in this case, must be understood as taxable, not abusively interpreting the criterion of </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c\">territoriality</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#040609\"> that both the Income Tax Law and its regulations contemplate, quite the opposite </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c\">extracting</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#040609\"> this criterion from the literal wording of the norm which speaks of income as a product of a Costa Rican source</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a\">. Even more so, when it is deemed not demonstrated that </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">the income declared as non-taxable and that were considered by the Tax Administration within the determination process as taxable, were not the product of a Costa Rican source and of the Bank's ordinary business, within the national territory</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">(considerando II, subsection a, of this judgment). </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">B</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#040609\">y reason of the foregoing, the criterion developed by the First Chamber of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal in</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#0a0a0a\"> considerando VI and in the operative part related to that aspect in </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a\">resolution number 114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#040609\"> must be declared harmful to the State's interests, insofar as it ordered:</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a\"> "</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a\">…</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a\"> The appealed resolution is revoked regarding the adjustments: (…) B) TAXABLE INCOME DECLARED AS NON-TAXABLE, (Interest income</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a\"> obtained from operations and investments conducted with foreign companies)…”</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c\">(see, in a similar vein, judgments number 95-2019-V of 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">103-2019-V of 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019; 77-2019-VIII of 8:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, all from the Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#040609\">.</span> <span style=\"font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span> <span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline\">VII.- REGARDING THE ORDINARY PROCEEDING RAISED BY BANCO BCT</span><span> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline\">AND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE SO-CALLED Name67376 METHODOLOGY PROMOTED BY THE ASOCIACIÓN BANCARIA COSTARRICENSE. </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">With respect to the validity of the procedure followed by the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense to achieve the approval of the methodology called Name67376 and the possibility that it binds Banco BCT, this collegiate body shares the criterion contained in judgment number 77-2019 of 8:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, issued by the Eighth Section of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal. In that sense, it is necessary to define, firstly, what is understood by interested party, it being the criterion of this Tribunal that, based on Article 15 of the Code of Norms and Procedures, it would be the taxpayer who would have to make the request to bind both himself and the Administration to the result thereof, since the aforementioned norm is the one that defines who the subjects are that intervene in the tax relationship, which would be the active subject, that is, the entity or body creditor of the tax, and the passive subject, which would be the person obligated to the fulfillment of the tax obligations, whether as a taxpayer or as a responsible party. Now then, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline\">without prejudice to the fact that in the present case it is considered accredited that Banco BCT is a member of the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense (ABC) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">(folio 170 of the judicial file)</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline\">,</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"> it is also true that, even if the Name67376 could deduce a mediate interest in the matter, it is not the subject of the tax obligation in question, and therefore it would not have standing for the request filed before SUGEF and the DGT, in order for the application of the methodology for the calculation of non-deductible financial expense, non-deductible administrative expense, and non-deductible exchange differential expense to be authorized. On the other hand, even assuming that the Name67376 had standing and that Banco BCT is a member thereof, according to the very text of Article 102 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures, for a matter of such transcendence as the use of the methodology in question to have </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">-in principle-</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"> an effect that would bind the Administration and grant, in turn, a favorable and consolidated situation in favor of the taxpayer, it would be through the consultation of Article 119 of the CNPT, as indicated by the same norm (102 of the CNPT). To these effects, the Tribunal agrees with what was indicated by the Contraloría General de la República (CGR) in report DFOE-IP-06-2005, regarding the necessity of the consultation, as well as with what was resolved by Section VI of this Tribunal, in judgment 127-2013-VI, of two forty-five p.m. on October twenty-one, two thousand thirteen, which establishes: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">“…</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">IV.- On the figure of the tax consultation. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">The issue of the characteristics, legal nature, and scope of the tax consultation, from a generic standpoint, was already submitted to the consideration of this Tribunal and subject to analysis in a case similar to the present one, which gave rise to judgment number 102-2012-VI of 4:20 p.m. on June 4, 2012, issued by this same Section VI. Such position is, therefore, assumed as a base premise for the analysis of the present case. Regarding the tax consultation, it is pertinent to point out what is set forth below. In the sphere of the legal-tax relationships generated between the Tax Administration (Treasury) and the passive subjects (or responsible parties), as a derivation of certainty and legal security, for the purpose of providing greater clarity and precision to the scope and projection of the content of the formal and material duties of the obligated subjects, the legal system confers a series of powers on the Treasury that precisely seek to delimit the scope of the norms that regulate the indicated obligatory relationships. In this line, part of these competencies are directed at issuing general norms that facilitate the correct application of tax norms. It is a generic competence contained in canon 99 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures and that makes possible, ex officio, the issuance of interpretive guidelines or institutional criteria that seek, it is insisted, to delimit the way in which a given tax norm is to be understood in general contexts. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">Nevertheless, the same reasons indicated make it possible for passive subjects to request from the Tax Administrations a formal consultation on the criterion to be applied to a specific and concrete tax situation, in which they have some degree of reasonable doubt regarding the manner in which they must proceed in order to fulfill their formal or material obligations. Numeral 119 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures regulates the minimum elements and procedural framework of this institute</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">. In the present case, reference will be made to the version of that norm prior to the reform carried out by Law No. 9069, given that it is the one that was applicable on that date of consultation (March 14, 2011), and in accordance with what is established by ordinal 9 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures. Note that Law No. 9069, which reformed, among multiple norms, the aforementioned canon 119, is effective as of its publication, which materialized in Scope No. 143 to the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 188 of September 28, 2012. Ergo, the rules that this new legislation imposes cannot be applied to the present case, since the consultation is of a date prior to that effective date. With that clarification made, it is worth indicating, the previous version (applicable to the case) of that mandate stated: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline\">Digitally signed by: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">“Article 119.- Consultations. Anyone who has a personal and direct interest may Consult with the Tax Administration on the application of the law to a concrete and current situation of fact. To that effect, the consultant must set forth in a special writing, with clarity and precision, all the constitutive elements of the situation that motivates the consultation and may also express their reasoned opinion. The note or writing in which the consultation is formulated must be submitted with a faithful copy of its original, which, duly sealed and with an indication of the date of its submission, must be returned as proof to the interested party./ </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">The consultation submitted before the expiration of the deadline for filing the sworn declaration or, as applicable, within the term for the payment of the tax, exempts the consultant from penalties for the excess that results from the administrative resolution, if said excess is paid within thirty days following the date of notification of the respective resolution.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\"> To resolve the consultation, the Administration has a term of forty-five days and, if upon the expiration of said term it does not issue a resolution, the interpretation of the consultant must be understood as approved, if they have set it forth. /</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\"> Said approval is limited to the specific case consulted and does not affect taxable events that occur after the notification of the resolution that the Administration issues in the future. /</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\"> The consultation resolved on the basis of inaccurate data provided by the consultant is null.” For its part, the procedure or process of tax consultation is further regulated in section II of chapter VI of the General Regulations for Tax Management, Oversight, and Collection, Executive Decree No. 29264-H -RGGFRT-. In view of that norm (art. 119 CNPT), it is the criterion of this Tribunal that the purpose of the figure of the tax consultation is to delimit the interpretation and application of a specific tax norm to a concrete case, according to the meaning given to it by the Treasury, in order to grant the passive subject a criterion regarding the matter consulted, which provides them with security in their actions. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">Now, from that perspective, what is resolved within a consultation process generates a criterion to which the passive subject must submit, insofar as it fixes the manner in which their tax situation is to be understood in accordance with the norms that regulate it. It is an institute that allows the passive subject to request from the Administration a prior pronouncement regarding the understanding and/or scope of a tax norm for the concrete case</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">. In this sense, as a reference, see what was set forth by Section II of this Tribunal, in ruling No. 225 of 10:00 a.m. on June 23, 2009. Nevertheless, it should be indicated that the tax consultation constitutes a mechanism that allows passive subjects to have clarity and certainty in the acts they must adopt regarding the formal and material duties of the tax obligations. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">The Costa Rican tax system is based on a scheme of self-determination, self-declaration, and self-assessment, which supposes that it is the passive subject who, in the first instance, delimits the content and amount of their tax obligations, declares them, and cancels them, and after that, the oversight powers of the Tax Administrations emerge. Depending on the correct exercise of tax duties, determinations may be made that increase the taxable base, include income or activities not declared by the passive subject, and eventually, not only adjust the contributive duty, but also, exercise external sanctioning powers, whether due to the occurrence of administrative infractions or tax crimes. In this way, the consultation process allows the taxpayer to have a pronouncement from the Tax Administration that, undoubtedly, indicates to them the manner in which, in the specific case consulted, they must act to proceed in accordance with their tax duties</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">. Subsequently, acting in a contrary manner despite having been instructed differently through that process, the tax non-compliance is evidenced with greater rigor, or, if they act in the terms that the Administration indicated to them, that compliance, being protected by the criterion of the consulted body or instance, will be in good faith and imbued with legitimate trust, for which reason it is unviable for them to be reproached for eventual tax omissions at a later date, provided that the factual conditions of the declaration are the same as those submitted to consultation, since if they are variable or different, that criterion will not be applicable. This is because the public decision would address the consultation of concrete situations, so that when weighing the factual-legal assumptions a, b, and c, decision X is issued. Then, if the actual situation that forms the basis of the declaration is dissimilar to the one consulted (e.g., b, c, and d), decision X is no longer applicable, so in that case, that criterion would no longer protect the passive subject. The opposite would lead to an abuse of right and to extending, by way of conjecture, what was resolved regarding a specific consultation to conditioning assumptions that were not present at the time the conditioned effect, expressed via consultation, was issued. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">From this standpoint, although it can be said that what is resolved in the consultation does not generate a perfected subjective right, since the conditions between the consultation and the declaration may vary, certainly, in the judgment of this collegiate body, it does generate an effect of certainty in favor of (or against) the consultant, which later cannot be ignored, and which leads to, if the declaration or determination is made according to what was resolved in the consultation, it being inappropriate to require behaviors different from those guided by the same Tax Administration. The contrary would lead to the senselessness that, despite having an interpretive guideline formally issued by a competent authority regarding concrete situations, the Administration could ignore it and impose not only increases in the tax quota on the taxpayer, but also potentially apply interest, fines, and administrative sanctions, leading, in that scenario, to arbitrariness and inequity to the detriment of the administered party, who, in that line, adjusted their behavior to what the Treasury indicated to them at the time. It is insisted, this is always provided that the consultation-declaration conditions were the same. Ignoring what was resolved in a tax consultation process would empty the very purpose of that process and would lead to the illogical situation of having an administrative opinion that, definitively, does not generate certainty, since it can later be ignored, even</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">regarding the situations that were consulted. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">Hence, one of the requirements of the tax consultation is the current nature of the unknown and its relation to a specific fiscal period and tax, which will be addressed below</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">V.- Now then, this type of procedure should not be confused with simple administrative requests, regulated in precept 102 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures. Their requirements are diverse given the specialty and specificity of what is requested, just as the deadlines available to the Administration are different. It is therefore of interest to specify the requirements of tax consultations. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">Norm 119 of the CNPT sets the following requirements</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">: a) Existence of a personal and direct interest of the taxpayer regarding a doubt; b) application to a concrete and current situation of fact; c) the formulation of the consultation in a clear and precise writing, in which the reasons for the situation originating the consultation are expressed, as well as the legal-interpretive criterion of the consultant regarding the specific situation set forth; and d) submission of the original and a faithful copy, duly sealed and with an indication of the date of its submission</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">.

For its part, canon 124 of the RGGFRT establishes the following requirements: a) State the specific and current factual situation, based on exact data; b) Clearly and precisely set forth all the constituent elements of the situation that prompts the query; c) Indicate the name of the interested party or parties in the case; d) Indicate the affected tax or taxes, with their respective fiscal periods; e) Express the reasoned opinion of the querying party; f) The document containing the query must be submitted with a faithful copy of the original; the Tax Administration official who receives it must acknowledge receipt by stamping the office seal indicating the date of submission and his or her full name, both on the copy to be returned to the interested party and on the original. On the other hand, the Administration has a period of 45 business days to resolve the query, which, if overlooked, gives way to the application of the figure of positive silence (silencio positivo), by virtue of which the interpretation given by the querying party is deemed approved, provided that such criterion has been set forth. The foregoing applies provided that the data presented were true and with the warning that <span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">this aspect is limited to the specific case</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">, without affecting subsequent events. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the prior existence of pronouncements, interpretive guidelines, or similar from the Tax Administration that bear some degree of relationship to the subject matter of the query does not, in all cases, preclude the possibility of filing this type of procedure, as doubts may well arise as to whether those provisions are fully applicable to the specific factual situation consulted. The power to address queries of this nature stems from the regulatory function of the Tax Administration, which, according to numeral 118 of the RGGFRT, has the purpose of ensuring the correct and uniform application of the tax regulations governing the taxes administered by the Dirección General de Tributación” (the highlighting is not from the original). </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">Based on the foregoing, this Court agrees with the criterion outlined by the State representation insofar as official communication DGT-1659-03 of December 2, 2003</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline"> (folio 86 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">, is a simple opinion, and that the procedure to obtain </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">-in principle-</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> the legal consequences of legitimate trust (confianza legítima), good faith (buena fe), legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), and intangibility of one's own acts (intangibilidad de los actos propios), should have followed the procedure established in numeral 119 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, which the Bank's representation was not unaware of, since, due to the special nature of its commercial activity, it has constant technical advice, and it is scarcely credible that in a matter as sensitive as this one, it did not seek advice from specialists. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Therefore, both due to the lack of standing of the ABC, and due to the manner chosen to do so, there was no act capable of binding the Tax Administration to the Bank regarding the use of the methodology, nor one that authorized it for its use either in the period to be declared or to rectify previous periods</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">. At this point, it is necessary to emphasize that SUGEF itself expressly indicated that the methodology was not authorized for tax purposes but rather for accounting purposes </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">-see folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; evidentiary file of "report DFOE-IP-06-2005-</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">, so regardless of whether it remains in effect or not, it is not effective for those purposes; as well as that there is no act of the Tax Administration that expressly and directly authorized Banco BCT to use that methodology and to rectify the returns of fiscal periods prior to the year 2003 under the terms of numeral 119 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios -in effect at that date- </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(it is not evident from folios 82 to 86 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file; see folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; evidentiary file of "report DFOE-IP-06-2005)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">, so the audit conducted and concluding in the contested determination was appropriate not only due to the antecedent of the report from the Contraloría General de la República (CGR), but also due to the obligations imposed by the legal system for the benefit of adequate tax collection. In that sense, it should be noted that the CGR indicated very serious objections regarding the ABC methodology, as it caused a higher deduction of deductible expenses to be applied, which led to a reduction in the tax, an aspect that could have been debated both in the determinative procedure and in this venue, but which was not, despite having had the opportunity for its defense with the possibility of providing the respective evidence. Also, considering that the petition was not filed by the person with standing, and that it was not done in the manner prescribed by the legal system, it is unnecessary to refer to the content of official communication DGT 1659-03, as to whether an authorization could be deduced from it, since, as indicated, Banco BCT was in a position and was also required to know that for the use of that methodology to be authorized, it had to resort to the query provided for in article 119 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, a situation that also disproves the principle of good faith (buena fe), as well as the application of the principle of legitimate trust (confianza legítima). This collegiate body adds that, furthermore, the administrative act authorizing a specific conduct must be express, a situation that could only be achieved through the query, therefore, grammatical interpretations regarding official communication DGT 1659-03 of the Director General de Tributación are not acceptable. Nor is there a subjective right declared in favor of Banco BCT, so the principles of intangibility of one's own acts (intangibilidad de los actos propios) and non-retroactivity (irretroactividad) cannot be invoked, nor the obligation to resort to the lesivity process (proceso de lesividad) or the procedure for evident and manifest nullity (nulidad evidente y manifiesta) provided for in the Ley General de la Administración Pública, because it is reiterated once again that </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">the Tax Administration</span><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">did not specifically authorize the banking entity to use the methodology, nor can a subjective right be deduced from the action of an Association that is not a taxpayer, despite Banco BCT being an active member of said association</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">. On the other hand, the fact that the Dirección General de Hacienda, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">by means of resolutions number DGH-042-2012 of 11:30 a.m. on December 12, 2012; DGH-029-2013 of 3:33 p.m. on August 23, 2013; DGH-030-2013 of 3:35 p.m. on August 23, 2013 and DGH-031-2013 of 3:43 p.m. on August 23, 2013, all issued by the Dirección General de Hacienda </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">(images 123 to 149 of the judicial file)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">, ordered the forgiveness (condonación) of interest in favor of Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">, Banco BAC San José, Banco Scotiabank de Costa Rica, S.A. and Banca Promérica, S.A., generated by the ex officio determinations made by the Subgerencia de Fiscalización of the Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes regarding the fiscal periods between 1992 and 2005, does not constitute, in the opinion of this Court, suitable proof that the principle of legitimate trust (confianza legítima) was harmed to the detriment of Banco BCT. This is because, although it is true that in said resolutions it is assumed that there is </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">“…an error by the Administration that in turn caused the taxpayer to be induced to make errors when determining its obligations…”</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">; it is also true that in the same formal actions, two reasons are adduced that prove otherwise, namely: </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">1)</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">“…That the taxpayer, protected by the criterion given in the official communication, proceeded to rectify the income tax (impuesto sobre la renta) returns for fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 and filed returns for fiscal periods 2003, 2004, and 2005, using for such purposes the cited methodology…” (the highlighting is not from the original)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">. It should be remembered that SUGEF itself expressly indicated that the methodology was not authorized for tax purposes but for accounting purposes and that there is no act of the Tax Administration that expressly authorized Banco BCT for its use and for the rectification of returns for fiscal periods prior to the year 2003 under the terms of numeral 119 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">-in effect at that date-</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">2)</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">“…Subsequently, through audit actions by the Administration, differences are determined against the taxpayer that originated because the taxpayer filed its returns under the protection of the questioned official communication and the Administration determined that the correct procedure was to do so in accordance with the Income Tax Law (articles 7 of the Law and 11 of the Regulation). Furthermore, the Tax Administration itself has demonstrated that there is a contradiction between the content of the indicated regulations and official communication 1659-03, and the higher-ranking regulation must prevail…” (the highlighting is not from the original). </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">In this sense, it is insisted -as considered supra- that Banco BCT was not in a position to claim ignorance that, for the possible authorization of the use of the ABC methodology, it had to resort to the query provided for in article 119 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios (in effect at that time), a situation that disproves the principle of good faith (buena fe). Finally, and without prejudice to the foregoing, it is necessary to indicate that in accordance with the principle of legal reserve in tax matters (principio de reserva de ley) </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(article 5, subsection a of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, in effect at that time)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">, only through formal and material law can the calculation bases of the tax be determined </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">-among other aspects-</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">, which is why </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">neither SUGEF nor the DGT could have validly authorized the use of the methodology for tax purposes, as that would have implied</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">-in principle-</span><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">a modification of the calculation base of the income tax (impuesto sobre la renta) provided for in numeral 7 of the law regulating that tax,</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> in those cases of taxpayers (sujetos pasivos) that generate both taxable and non-taxable income indiscriminately </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">-as occurs in this case</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">-. Consequently, the application of the provisions in numerals 10 and 12 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional and 129 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">in relation to the scope of the powers granted therein to SUGEF, must be carried out in light of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(see in a similar vein, judgments 95-2019-V of 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V of 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019; 77-2019-VIII of 8:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, all from the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-style:italic">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">VIIIo.- REGARDING THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN DFOE-IP-06-2005 OF THE CONTRALORÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA. </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">This Court considers</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">that, given that Report DFOE-IP-06-2005 is enormously significant in this matter, it is necessary to reference it, indicating firstly the observations made regarding the use of the ABC methodology: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">\"…In summary, it has been shown that the Methodology does not associate non-deductible expenses with significant sources of non-taxable income, but rather with a so-called 'excess liquidity' defined using elements of financial regulations, but not entirely adjusted to them. Since such 'excess liquidity' is determined with the exclusion of securities with terms of more than one month, and subsequently multiplied by a significantly reduced financial cost rate, the result is a systematic underestimation of non-deductible financial expenses and, by derivation, of non-deductible administrative and exchange difference expenses. Therefore, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">the non-deductible expenses resulting from the Methodology, in the best of cases, could not be understood as the only non-deductible ones, nor would it be admissible to consider all the remaining ones as deductible.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline"> Doing so, for the reasons already analyzed and discussed, would constitute an underestimation of non-deductible expenses, and consequently an overestimation of deductible expenses. Net income (renta neta), if applicable, would be being underestimated. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2.4.3. RECTIFICATIONS BASED ON THE METHODOLOGY. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">“Table 1 shows the amounts of Net income (Renta neta), determined by the public banks, without rectifying and rectified as a result of the application of the Methodology corresponding to the fiscal periods from 2000 to 2002. The fiscal losses (negative net income) of the banks increased considerably in such periods (with the exception of one bank). Thus, the total amount of the fiscal losses of the referred banks increased by approximately ¢30,000 million annually, on average. The negative fiscal result of such establishments responds to criteria of their own tax declaration, not to their economic reality, characterized by positive profits.\" Table 2 indicates the total amounts of Deductible Expenses (Gastos deducibles), determined by the cited banks, before and after they made the respective rectifications, by virtue of the application of the Methodology in the cited periods. It was to be expected that, due to the content of the audits carried out by the DGT and the resolutions issued by the TFA, on this matter, deductible expenses should be subject to limits, and the application of the Methodology would be consistent with that trend; however, in the study conducted, it was determined that in some cases deductible expenses show an increase, and in others the decrease is slight, in accordance with what was discussed in section 2.4.2. The global sum of expenses deducted by public banks, as observed, increased. (...) In accordance with what is stated in this section 2.4, and within the framework of the Tax Administration's competencies, relating to management, collection, tax audit, and access to tax information established in the legal system, and by virtue of the fact that the thesis accepted by the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo has been the application of the proportionality criterion established in the Income Tax Law and its Regulation (with the exception of the 25% deduction of financial expenses attributable to non-taxable income), it is necessary for said Administration to delve deeper into this situation, and definitively determine whether the application of the Methodology is consistent with the tax calculation base established in Income Tax Law 7092. (...) \"...after the approval of the methodology by the Dirección General, only one case has been audited, which belongs to the Public Sector. In the review carried out on said bank, one of our risk areas was the application of the methodology./ In the review of this case, we verified that the application of this methodology led the taxpayer to apply a higher deduction of deductible expenses. There is also a study carried out by the auditors, where they issue their opinion on the methodology; however, it is considered that this study has not been endorsed by the Dirección General ... said study will be reviewed by the Normative and Audit Areas, to then proceed with its officialization./ I must state that this Administration has not made any comparison of the collection effect since the approval of the methodology, and to carry that out, it would be necessary to audit each of the Banks\". </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">In accordance with the foregoing, it is also necessary that, pursuant to its powers and in accordance with the respective audit programs and procedures, audit actions be carried out on the banking entities deemed pertinent\"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">. (The emphasis is not from the original).</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">Now, this collegiate body deems that of equal importance is the analysis made by the CGR regarding the concurrence of competencies and the actions of both SUGEF and the DGT, in the context of the issuance of official communication DGT-1659-03 of December 2, 2003, in the following sense:</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">\"…Without prejudice to the foregoing </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline">(which would be what was transcribed regarding the initiation of audit actions)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">, the analysis of other aspects related to the procedures carried out before SUGEF and DGT will proceed below. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2.5 SOME LEGAL ASPECTS RELATED TO THE PROCEDURES CARRIED OUT BEFORE SUGEF AND THE DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE TRIBUTACIÓN.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline"> In the study conducted, the following was determined: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">a)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline"> Without prejudice to the aforementioned regarding the legal reserve in tax matters, with respect to the procedure carried out by SUGEF, paragraph 1 of numeral 119 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central 7558, of November 3, 1995, defines the subjective or organic scope of the competence of that entity: \"For the purpose of ensuring the stability, soundness, and efficient functioning of the national financial system, the Superintendencia shall exercise its supervision and oversight activities over all entities that carry out financial intermediation, in strict compliance with legal and regulatory provisions, ensuring that they comply with the precepts applicable to them.../ In relation to the operations of the supervised entities and the recording of their transactions, the Superintendencia shall be empowered to issue the general rules necessary for the establishment of sound banking practices, all in safeguarding the public interest....( ) The general rules and guidelines issued by the Superintendencia shall be of mandatory observance for the supervised entities\". Added to the indicated powers of SUGEF are regulatory and directive attributions since it can issue general rules or guidelines to the supervised entities. In this sense, numeral 129 of the same Law states: \"Acceptance of criteria of the Superintendencia. The criteria established by the Superintendencia, regarding the accounting record of the operations of the supervised entities, the preparation and presentation of their financial statements, their chart of accounts, the valuation of their financial assets, and the classification and rating of their assets, must be accepted for</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">tax</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline"> purposes\". On the other hand, according to our legal system, the Tax Administration is the administrative body responsible for collecting and auditing taxes and issuing general rules for the correct application of tax laws. In this regard, article 99 of Law 4755, of April 29, 1971, Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios states: \"Concept and powers. The Tax Administration is understood to be the administrative body responsible for collecting and auditing taxes, whether it concerns the Treasury (Fisco) or other public entities that are active subjects (sujetos activos), in accordance with articles 11 and 14 of this Code./ Said body may issue general rules for the purposes of the correct application of tax laws, within the limits set by the relevant legal and regulatory provisions. In the case of the Tax Administration of the Ministry of Finance, when this Code grants a power or authority to the Dirección General de Tributación, it shall be understood that it is also applicable to the Dirección General de Aduanas and the Dirección General de Hacienda, within their areas of competence. \" (*) This article has been amended by Law No. 7900 of August 3, 1999. LG# 159 of August 17, 1999.\" For its part, in relation to the regulatory competence of the Tax Administration, indicated in the preceding numeral, article 100 of the same Code establishes: “Article 100.- Review by the hierarchical superior. / The rules referred to in the preceding article may be modified or repealed by the hierarchical superior, by means of reasoned resolutions\". </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Regarding what is stated above in this document, as a result of the Association's petition, the CONASSIF, at the request of SUGEF, agreed to modify the chart of accounts for the banking entities of the Sistema Bancario Nacional, for the purposes of the accounting record of non-taxable income and non-deductible expenses</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">. However, regarding the official communications issued by SUGEF on this case, that superintendency indicated to this Contraloría that</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">: \"Said official communications did not constitute an authorization for the recording nor for the calculation of non-deductible expenses of the banks of the Sistema Bancario Nacional for tax purposes</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">. This Superintendencia does not have legal powers that allow it to authorize, via the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense, all the entities of the Sistema Bancario Nacional regarding the application of the proposed methodology for the recording and calculation of non-deductible expenses, used in the calculation of income tax (impuesto sobre la renta).../ Neither this Superintendencia, nor the Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero have the competence to authorize methodologies and accounting records for tax purposes../ The notes SUGEF 4406-200309032, SUGEF-4338-200309032 and SUGEF 4796-200309032 present criteria that are not binding in response to a request from the ABC../ To date, this Superintendencia has not authorized the banks of the Sistema Bancario Nacional to make adjustments based on the application of the methodology in question for the indicated periods, according to the request submitted by the ABC\". </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">Notwithstanding the transcendence of the referred petition that was formulated in relation to the Methodology before the Dirección General de Tributación, regarding the studies that supported the decision made by the DGT, it indicated that: \"...3. Internally, the Director General de Tributación appointed at that date was responsible for analyzing the proposal and giving his approval.../4. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">In our records, there is no evidence that technical or financial studies were carried out internally by the Administration regarding that methodology.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline"> However, this Dirección General will proceed to carry out the necessary studies to determine if the method currently applied, based on the proposed methodology... should be maintained or if it should be modified. /...In our records, there is no evidence that prior or subsequent studies were carried out on the effects or the future fiscal impact of the application of the methodology. But... this Dirección General will proceed to carry out the necessary studies to determine if the method currently applied... should be maintained or if it should be left without effect in order to return to the system according to which proportionality was applied/...In our records, there is no evidence that studies were carried out on the differences in the tax base (base imponible) and the eventual lower tax to be paid. With the studies that will be carried out, this situation will also be evaluated.. \".

Given the foregoing, in the opinion of this Office of the Comptroller General</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">, the decision made by the Dirección General de Tributación at that time did not conform to the applicable legal provisions, because the significance of the matter, and the change in criterion that such a decision entailed, in light of prior tax controversies, obliged a due and express statement of grounds or motivation,</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\"> as established in Article 136 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, which states: 'The following shall be motivated with mention, at least succinct, of their grounds:.../ c) Those that depart from the criterion followed in prior proceedings or from the opinion of advisory bodies" (...) </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\"> In response to an inquiry from this Office of the Comptroller General, the DGT communicated that the processing of the Association's request was indeed appropriate, by virtue of the provisions of Article 102 of the CNPT" (The petitioner based the request on this article), which states: "The Director General of Tax Administration or the managers of the tax administrations and of large taxpayers in whom he delegates, totally or partially, are obligated to resolve any petition or appeal filed by interested parties within a period of two months, counted from the date of filing or interposition of one or the other. Petition shall be understood as a claim regarding a real case, founded on reasons of legality.../" Notwithstanding the criterion expressed by the DGT on the Administration's competence to process said request, in accordance with Article 102 of the cited Code, the provided inquiry is reserved, from the standpoint of active ad causam standing, for those who have a personal and direct interest (taxpayers, successors, responsible parties, withholding and collection agents), regarding the application of tax law to a concrete and actual factual situation. With respect to this type of situation, the DGT has stated the following: "Both cited provisions (referring to Articles 102 and 119 of the CNPT) are clear and pertain to claims or petitions of the taxable person (sujeto pasivo) solely, therefore, in accordance with this provision, the case under inquiry does not fit within the circumstances required by the regulations, because the person making the petition or inquiring is not the interested party (sujeto interesado), but rather a professional who provides services to the legal entity, as noted in his petition: 'a client,' and these only proceed when formulated directly by whoever has a personal interest in having the law applied to the concrete and actual situation, since by addressing it, its pronouncement would have an impact and repercussion on persons other than those who have intervened." Likewise, that directorate, in official communication 0167, dated February 7, 2001, clarifies, regarding the type of proceeding and competence regulated by Article 102 of the Code, the following: "Returning to the above, we can establish that when the first paragraph of Article 102 speaks of a petition, it is referring to any claim formulated about a real case, and which is supported by reasons of legality, which must be resolved within a period of two months from its interposition, failing which, it will be deemed denied, and the corresponding appeals may be filed against this denial. " For its part, on this same topic, the TFA has pronounced as follows: "(...) The petitioner must possess a personal and direct interest in the application of the law to a concrete and actual factual situation. In view of the foregoing, it is considered that the so-called inquiry by the appellant is not such, under the terms required by that legal provision; the Tax Administration, in addressing it, its pronouncement would have an impact and repercussion on persons other than those who have intervened in formulating the inquiry, especially since there has been no authorization from the taxpayers to whom it is intended to apply… If the interested party's reasoning and the interpretation of the mentioned texts were to be admitted, the eventual decision issued by the Tax Administration would have effects of general scope, which evidently was not what the legislator intended or desired when requiring a personal and direct interest in a concrete and actual factual situation, because otherwise, as in the case under commentary, the pronouncement rendered would affect third parties who have not been parties to these proceedings, distorting the institution of the inquiry (...)" Decision No. 33, at 8:00 a.m. on June 22, 1993. First Chamber. Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo. On the other hand, regarding the communication of the decision made by the Directorate, it was indicated: "In the case of the inquiry raised by the Association (petitioner), it was resolved directly by the Director General at that time, based on the powers granted to him by law. / The response to the request made, in accordance with Article 102 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, was notified at the place indicated by the Association for that purpose. The matter of communication to third parties by the applicant is not a matter within the competence of this Dirección General…". In the opinion of this Office of the Comptroller General, the information set forth in the previous paragraph would not be consistent with the provisions of Article 101 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, which states: "Publicity of tax rules and jurisprudence. Without prejudice to the publicity of laws, regulations, and other provisions of a general nature issued by the Tax Administration in exercise of its legal powers, the agency in charge of tax application must immediately make known, through the Diario Oficial and other advertising means appropriate to the circumstances, the decisions or judgments issued in particular cases that, in its judgment, offer general interest, omitting references that could harm particular interests or the guarantee of confidentiality of information established by Article 112 of this Code." Finally, Article 142, subsection 2 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública establishes regarding the effectiveness of the administrative act: "2. For it to produce retrospective effect in favor of the administered party, it will be required that from the date indicated for the start of its effect, the grounds for its adoption exist, and that the retroactive effect does not harm the rights or interests of third parties acting in good faith." d) The situations set forth in subsections a), b), and c) of this section 2.5 must be analyzed by the Ministerio de Hacienda with the purpose of gauging their effects and adopting the actions that, eventually, are appropriate. The actions carried out must be coordinated with the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras and carried out with the concurrence of the Procuraduría General de la República, </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">when applicable</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">, </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">and in accordance with their competencies, and with respect to said actions, due process must be observed, regarding the financial entities of the Sistema Bancario Nacional, in what is pertinent</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">. (...) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">4. PROVISIONS 4.1 TO THE MINISTRO DE HACIENDA. a) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">Immediately undertake the pertinent actions to determine, definitively, whether the Methodology for the calculation and recording of non-deductible expenses, associated with non-taxable income of banking entities of the Sistema Bancario Nacional, submitted to the attention of the DGT and SUGEF, is consistent with the tax base calculation established in the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta 7092 and also, whether, based on the situations noted in relation to what was decided by these latter entities, it is appropriate to render null and void the decision on the Methodology, and to issue any other decision that may eventually be necessary, with the purpose of gauging its effects and adopting the actions that are appropriate. The actions carried out must be coordinated with the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras and carried out with the concurrence of the Procuraduría General de la República when applicable and in accordance with its competencies, and with respect to said actions, due process must be observed regarding the financial entities of the Sistema Bancario Nacional, in what is pertinent. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">b) Carry out, within the framework of the competencies of the Tax Administration and in accordance with audit programs and procedures, and in light of the contents of this report, audit actions on the banking entities of the Sistema Bancario Nacional, as appropriate</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">" (Emphasis is not from the original)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Cambria; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">. </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">Based on the foregoing partial transcription of Report number DFOE-IP-06-2005 and coupled with the fact that neither the Contraloría General de la República is a party to this proceeding, nor has the plaintiff demonstrated that said audit body accused in any way the non-compliance with what was ordered in its report by the Tax Administration, this tribunal considers that the statement of charges (traslado de cargos) and the determinative decisions (resoluciones determinativas) issued against Banco BCT, reflect compliance with what was provided in the report in question and not, as the representation of Banco BCT erroneously interprets. In that regard, it is reiterated that the provision of the DFOE-IP-06-2005 report related to the initiation of audit actions did not depend on institutional coordination to analyze the adherence of the methodology Nombre67376 to the legal order, since in accordance with the provisions of Articles 12 and 29 of the Ley Orgánica de la CGR, the report is clear in providing that the Ministro de Hacienda must:</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline\">“…</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">b) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">Carry out, within the framework of the competencies of the Tax Administration and in accordance with audit programs and procedures,</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\"> and in light of the contents of this report, audit actions on the banking entities of the Sistema Bancario Nacional, as appropriate…”. </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">Consequently, the argument is without merit and must be declared as such</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">(see in a similar vein, judgments 95-2019-V at 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V at 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019; 77-2019-VIII at 08:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, all from the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline\">IX.- REGARDING EXCHANGE DIFFERENCES ON OTHER INVESTMENTS AND OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT ABROAD. </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">In that regard, this Tribunal considers the following. The tax on profits, in general terms, has as its chargeable event (hecho generador), as indicated by Article 1 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">-in force at that time-</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">, the perception of Costa Rican-source income, in the following terms:</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">"The chargeable event of the tax on profits referred to in the preceding paragraph is the perception of income in money or in kind, continuous or occasional, from any Costa Rican source. This tax also levies income, continuous or eventual, from a Costa Rican source, received or accrued (devengados) by individuals or legal entities domiciled in the country; as well as any other income or benefit from a Costa Rican source not exempted by law, (...) For the purposes of the provisions in the preceding paragraphs, income or benefits from a Costa Rican source shall be understood as those from services provided, goods located, or capital used in the national territory, which are obtained during the fiscal period in accordance with the provisions of this law."</span><span> </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">Likewise, Articles 5 to 7 and 81 of the same law lay down the method for determining the taxable base, which in general terms is the deduction from gross income, which includes all income, of those costs useful and necessary for the production of the profit or benefit, as well as any other permitted by law. For its part, Article 8 of the Regulations to the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta -in force at that time- established:</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline\"> "</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">Gross income. It is constituted by the total of income or benefits, in money or in kind, continuous or eventual, received or accrued during the tax period and from any Costa Rican source of the activities referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 1 of the law. It is also constituted by exchange differences originating in assets in foreign currency, related to the customary business operations of the taxpayers"</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">.</span><span> </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">As financial intermediation is the main activity of Banco BCT, leading it to allocate the resources it receives from investors to obtain better returns, as well as to lend them to deficit economic agents in need of those resources, the required habitual nature is configured, which means that the exchange differential from the internalization of resources is subject to the tax on profits, which would lead to declaring the nullity of the TFA's decision, regarding the recognition made to the Bank for that item.</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a\"> At this point, it is necessary to emphasize that the representatives of Banco BCT indicate that it is inappropriate to tax the income obtained from exchange differential on </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c\">income obtained from operations and investments carried out with foreign companies</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c\">-with the exceptions established by law-</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a\"> given that Article 1.3 of Decreto Ejecutivo </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">number 28590-H</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a\"> establishes that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c\">"...</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">In accordance with Article 10 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional and the Chart of Accounts for Financial Entities, valuation adjustments shall not be taken into account for the determination of the net profits of banks...".</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"> Without prejudice that, in accordance with the principle of tax legality (principio de legalidad tributaria) provided in Article 5 subsection a) of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios in force at that time, exemptions from a tax obligation are a matter reserved to law, and therefore, it is not possible to establish an exoneration through a regulatory provision; it is also true, that the application of the provisions of Articles 10 and 12 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional and 129 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline\">in relation to the scope of the powers granted therein to SUGEF, must be carried out precisely in accordance with the principle of legal reservation in tax matters. </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">In that regard, this Tribunal shares the criterion contained in determinative decision number </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a\">DT10R-058-08 of 12:00 noon on April 30, 2008, issued by the Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes of the Dirección General del Tributación</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">, which on this point considered: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">"... The transcribed legal provision does not have to do with the taxation of exchange differences that is discussed in the present litis, but rather with the constitution of reserves related to exchange rate fluctuations and their deduction for purposes of determining the net profits of banks. Indeed, one thing is the taxation of the exchange differential for discounts and capital gains generated by adjustments for changes in the realizable value of investments, investments in dollars with withholding at source, investments in dollars exempt, among others, under the protection of the provisions established in Articles 1, 5, and 81 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta and Article 8 of its regulations, and a completely different thing are the so-called reserves for exchange rate fluctuations, which financial entities regulated by the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras are obligated to establish and which, according to the cited decree, shall not be taken into account for determining the net profits of banks. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">In other words, no sum whatsoever is being disallowed on account of reserves for exchange rate fluctuations, but rather what is being done is taxing income on account of exchange differential resulting from the development of its customary activity, namely financial intermediation</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">..." (folios 194 to 195 of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo"; the highlighting is not from the original). </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">Consequently, and for all the above, the argument is without merit and must be declared as such </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">(see in a similar vein, judgments 95-2019-V at 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; 77-2019-VIII at 08:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, all from the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline\">X.- REGARDING THE ALLEGED STRICT LIABILITY OF THE STATE FOR LAWFUL CONDUCT AND NORMAL FUNCTIONING. </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">In subsidiary claim number 3 of the lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, it requested</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535\">"...</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535\">the </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">liability for </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535\">lawful </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">conduct and normal functioning of the State be declared, </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535\">it being </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">appropriate </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535\">to request </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">that due to the </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535\">exceptional </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">intensity of the injury and the small proportion of those </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535\">affected, it be </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">declared that there is no </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535\">basis whatsoever </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">for the imposition of interest and penalties </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535\">related to </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">the tax </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535\">adjustments </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">that are </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535\">made </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">in the </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535\">challenged </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">acts...". </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">Notwithstanding the foregoing, the representatives of Banco BCT did not develop in their lawsuit brief </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">(folios 13 to 78 of the judicial case file) </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">the arguments of fact and law upon which they support the aforementioned claim, as indicated by the State Attorney appearing in this proceeding in her brief responding to the lawsuit </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">(folio 117 of the judicial case file). </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">Given the indicated omission, this Tribunal lacks the necessary elements to analyze and determine whether or not the requirements established in Article 194 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública are met in the specific case, even more so since the State's representative has also been unable to provide for its defense due to the same circumstance, for which reason this collegiate body rejects subsidiary claim number 3. In addition to the foregoing, it is worth noting that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#191919\">-as indicated by one of the representatives of Banco </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">BCT</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#191919\"> during the clarification stage of the oral and public trial hearing held on December 10, 2019 (see the digital backup of that proceeding contained in the folder of associated documents of the virtual case file)</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">- the Tax Administration decided to forgive Banco BCT the interest on the amounts determined for the fiscal periods between the years 1992 to 2005 for income tax (impuesto sobre la renta), </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\">a decision that prompted said banking entity to, on April 2, 2014, pay those sums under protest, as evidenced by the payment receipts</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d\"> visible at folios 226 to 231 of the judicial case file. Indeed, this led Banco BCT to expand its claims so that, in the event the lawsuit were granted, the State be ordered </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#191919\">"...</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a\">the refund of the amounts paid on April 2, 2014, plus their respective interest generated from the time of payment, until the date of their effective refund </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">...". </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">For all the foregoing, subsidiary claim number 3 related to an alleged strict liability of the State for lawful conduct and normal functioning is rejected.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline\">XI.- Nombre14412</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\">.</span> Based on all of the foregoing in Considerandos V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X of this judgment, the following are declared inadmissible: a) Claim 1 of the lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, seeking to have declared the absolute nullity of the transfer of charges; the determinative resolutions, issued in the income tax audit procedure for periods between 1999 and 2005, as well as resolution 114-2012 issued by the TFA. b) Claim 2, subsidiarily seeking a declaration of the partial nullity of the transfer of charges; the determinative resolutions, issued in the income tax audit procedure for periods between 1999 and 2005, as well as resolution 114-2012 issued by the TFA, in everything that is ablativo to its represented party. c) Claim 3, subsidiarily seeking, if it is considered there is no ground for nullity, a declaration of State liability for lawful conduct and abnormal functioning, and that due to the exceptional intensity of the injury and the small proportion of those affected, it be declared that there is no basis whatsoever for the imposition of interest and penalties related to the tax adjustments practiced in the challenged acts; d) Likewise, and due to the manner in which it is resolved, claim 5 (refund of amounts paid under protest plus interest) is also inadmissible since its estimation was subject to the acceptance of the aforementioned nullifying claims.

**XII.- ON THE SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES.** This collegiate body considers that based on all of the foregoing in Considerandos IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X of this judgment, the defense of lack of standing (excepción de falta de derecho) filed by the State is upheld and, consequently, the lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, S.A. against the State is dismissed in its entirety. For its part, and based on all of the foregoing in Considerandos IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X of this judgment, the defense of lack of standing (excepción de falta de derecho) filed by Banco BCT, S.A. is rejected, and therefore, the action for declaration of lesividad (lesividad) filed by the State against said banking entity is granted, in the following terms, it being understood as denied in everything not expressly indicated: 1) The partial absolute nullity, for being injurious to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, is declared of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo at 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012, insofar as it orders accepting as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income, the percentages of 23.20% for 1999, 29.46% for 2000, 25.28% for 2001, 36.54% for 2002, 29.55% for 2003, 32.64% for 2004, and 35.87% for 2005, for the concept of "financial expenses interest" for the raising of funds to constitute liquidity reserves in favor of Banco BCT, S.A.; 2) The partial absolute nullity, for being injurious to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, is declared of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo at 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012, insofar as it ordered: "...The appealed resolution is overturned regarding the adjustments: (...) B) TAXABLE INCOME DECLARED AS NON-TAXABLE, (Income from interest obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies)…”; 3) Consequently, what was resolved by the then Administración Tributaria de Grandes Contribuyentes in determinative resolution number DT10R-058-08 at 12:00 hours on April 30, 2008, confirmed by resolution number AU10R-076-08 also issued by the Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes, at 12:00 hours on June 3, 2008, is upheld; 4) By reason of the foregoing, once this judgment becomes final, the Dirección de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales of the Dirección General de Tributación must proceed to liquidate the tax obligation of Banco BCT, S.A. relative to the Income Tax for the fiscal periods from 1999 to 2005, inclusive, in accordance with the provisions of determinative resolution number DT10R-058-08 at 12:00 hours on April 30, 2008, in the terms that have been ordered in this judgment, of which the State's representatives must inform the Judges of the Sentence Execution Phase of this Tribunal, within a period of six months counted from the date this ruling becomes final. The foregoing is without prejudice to the condonation of interest in favor of Banco BCT, S.A. ordered by the Dirección General de Hacienda.- **XIII.- ON COSTS.** In accordance with numeral 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, both procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by the very fact of being so. The dispensation of this condemnation is only viable when, in the Tribunal's judgment, there was sufficient reason to litigate or when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In the case at hand, this collegiate body finds reason to apply the exceptions established by the applicable regulations and break the principle of condemnation of the losing party, since by virtue of the nature of the debated issues, it is considered that Banco BCT had sufficient reason to litigate. Regarding the lesividad (lesividad) proceeding, despite the fact that the claims raised therein are fully granted, this collegiate body considers that, by virtue of the change in criteria of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo; the manner in which the events ventilated here developed; and the existing jurisdictional precedents, the representation of Banco BCT had sufficient reason to litigate, which is why it is resolved without a special condemnation of costs. Therefore, both parties must assume the costs incurred by them in this process (see in a similar vein, judgments 95-2019-V at 10:30 hours on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V at 13:30 hours on December 10, 2019, both issued by Section V of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda).

**POR TANTO.** The defense of lack of standing (excepción de falta de derecho) filed by the State is upheld and, consequently, the lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, S.A. against the State is dismissed in its entirety. For its part, the defense of lack of standing (excepción de falta de derecho) filed by Banco BCT, S.A. is rejected, and therefore, the action for declaration of lesividad (lesividad) filed by the State against said banking entity is granted, in the following terms, it being understood as denied in everything not expressly indicated: 1) The partial absolute nullity, for being injurious to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, is declared of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo at 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012, insofar as it orders accepting as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income, the percentages of 23.20% for 1999, 29.46% for 2000, 25.28% for 2001, 36.54% for 2002, 29.55% for 2003, 32.64% for 2004, and 35.87% for 2005, for the concept of "financial expenses interest" for the raising of funds to constitute liquidity reserves in favor of Banco BCT, S.A.; 2) The partial absolute nullity, for being injurious to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, is declared of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo at 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012, insofar as it ordered: "...The appealed resolution is overturned regarding the adjustments: (...) B) TAXABLE INCOME DECLARED AS NON-TAXABLE, (Income from interest obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies)…”; 3) Consequently, what was resolved by the then Administración Tributaria de Grandes Contribuyentes in determinative resolution number DT10R-058-08 at 12:00 hours on April 30, 2008, confirmed by resolution number AU10R-076-08 also issued by the Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes, at 12:00 hours on June 3, 2008, is upheld; 4) By reason of the foregoing, once this judgment becomes final, the Dirección de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales of the Dirección General de Tributación must proceed to liquidate the tax obligation of Banco BCT, S.A. relative to the Income Tax for the fiscal periods from 1999 to 2005, inclusive, in accordance with the provisions of determinative resolution number DT10R-058-08 at 12:00 hours on April 30, 2008, in the terms that have been ordered in this judgment, of which the State's representatives must inform the Judges of the Sentence Execution Phase of this Tribunal, within a period of six months counted from the date this ruling becomes final. The foregoing is without prejudice to the condonation of interest in favor of Banco BCT, S.A. ordered by the Dirección General de Hacienda. 5) These matters are resolved without a special condemnation of costs.- **Marianella Álvarez Molina** **Ileana Isabel Sánchez Navarro** **Juan Luis Giusti Soto** **EXPEDIENTE: 13-001793-1027-CA** *(accumulated with Exp. 14-001246-1027-CA)* **ASUNTO: PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO** **ACTORES: BANCO BCT, S.A.; EL ESTADO** *(Procuradora Paula Azofeifa Chavarría)* **DEMANDADOS: EL ESTADO** *(Procuradora Sandra Sánchez y Nombre5486)* **Y EL BANCO BCT, S.A.** **I. PRESUPUESTOS PARA EL PROCESO DE LESIVIDAD.** In the case at hand, the State seeks a declaration of nullity of resolution number 114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, Sala Primera) at 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2011, for being contrary to law and harmful (lesiva) to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, **solely** with respect to the reversal of what was decided by the then Large Taxpayers Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria de Grandes Contribuyentes), regarding the following **adjustments: i)** For non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income: financial expenses associated with liquidity reserves; b) For taxable income declared as non-taxable (interest income obtained from operations and investments made abroad). From this perspective, it is necessary to briefly establish compliance with the various prerequisites that the legal system imposes for filing a lesividad (harmfulness) proceeding, as the absence of any of these elements would bar and render unnecessary an examination of the merits.

In general terms, lesividad constitutes a jurisdictional mechanism by which the Administration seeks the elimination of one of its own acts, which, in principle, generates a favorable effect for a third-party recipient. From this perspective, in this type of dispute, lesividad is subjective in nature, as it seeks the annulment of conduct that grants a right or, in general, a beneficial situation to a person. This figure is formalized in canon 34 of the Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo, a rule that establishes the preliminary elements and procedural regulations for this figure. However, it is also referenced in numeral 173 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública.

From the perspective of procedural prerequisites, subjective, objective, procedural, and temporal conditions are imposed. Regarding the subjective aspect, active legal standing (legitimación activa) is granted to the Administration that issued the challenged act, while the passive defendant (legitimado pasivo) is the recipient of the effects of the conduct, i.e., the one who obtains its benefits. Concerning the objective aspect, lesividad is constituted as a mechanism for the legal elimination of administrative acts that are substantially inconsistent with the legal system, i.e., acts that suffer from some level of invalidity—whether absolute or relative—in any of its typologies (Articles 128, 158, 165, and concordant provisions of the cited Ley General No. 6227). In this line, the Administration must declare that conduct harmful to public interests, which must be established within a framework of internal administrative actions that are imperative for filing the action.

Indeed, procedurally, it is required that the supreme highest authority (jerarca máximo supremo) of the respective Public Administration declare the lesividad of the act, whether due to harm to economic, fiscal, or other interests arising from the public interest, for which purpose it must have a supporting legal-technical opinion substantiating that determination. Unlike other figures for the elimination of public conduct, it does not require a hearing for the third party, but only actions within the Administration, as it is within the judicial process that the third party may present its defense arguments. Now, when the act emanates from the State (see Article 1 of the cited Ley General), i.e., from the Central Administration (Administración Central), the lawsuit may only be filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) (canon 16 of Law No. 8508), at the request of the supreme highest authority and following an internal declaration of lesividad, detailing the reasons for that determination.

Regarding the temporal dimension, the procedural regulations establish a period of one year, counted from the issuance of the act (not from its notification), to declare it harmful to public interests, and after that declaration (and not from the expiration of that first year), a period of one year is granted to file the administrative contentious action as a fatal statute of limitations (plazo fatal de caducidad), except in cases of acts with absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta), in which case, the declaration of lesividad may be made as long as its effects persist, with the aforementioned year running from the definitive cessation of those effects. In that hypothesis, any eventual favorable judgment will order nullity solely for the future inapplicability of the act, constituting an express exception to the regime of retroactivity of absolute nullities established by ordinal 171 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. The exception to this one-year temporal aspect is configured in the protection of public domain, in which case the lesividad action is not subject to a time limit due to the application of the general clause of imprescriptibility of that type of property, as derived from canon 261 of the Código Civil.

Now, **in tax matters**, the action for caducity, in addition to the aforementioned rules, is regulated in Article 165 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios (in force at that time). In this fiscal area, according to canon 41 of the Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo, the maximum period to initiate the proceeding shall be the same period imposed by the legal system as the statute of limitations (plazo de prescripción) for the respective substantive right, i.e., 3 or 5 years (numeral 51 of the Código Tributario, in force at that time) for determination powers and 4 years for sanctioning duties (precept 71 ibid, version in force at that time). In addition, in this fiscal dynamic, since the natural hierarchy is…

6227), a competence that has been granted by legal imperative to the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal, as follows from ordinal 156 of the Code of Tax Standards and Procedures (in force at that time), thus constituting at that appellate phase an improper monophasic hierarchy (non-hierarchical control), it is clear that the time limit to declare the harmful nature (lesividad) that runs against the Minister of the Treasury portfolio (a competence based on the fact that he holds the status of supreme maximum superior of both the reviewed body and the non-hierarchical controller, both part of the same structure of that Administration), <span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">is computed from the moment that that improper monophasic controller body informs the A quo Administration of what was resolved by virtue of its appellate competence</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">. Prior to that instant, the natural superior is materially and legally unable to take cognizance of an act that may be potentially harmful to the fiscal, economic, or public interests that he must protect and, therefore, incapacitated from exercising his powers to declare that action harmful (lesiva). </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">Of course, when the act deemed irregular derives from a lower administration, since the aforementioned situation of improper monophasic hierarchy does not apply, such exception is not applicable, and the time limit is computed from the adoption of the act</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">. In the case at hand, from the analysis of the case file, it is concluded that the internal declaration of harmful nature (lesividad) meets the aforementioned requirements. As has been established, </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">resolution number TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, which is requested to be declared partially null, </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">was communicated to the Large National Taxpayers Audit Directorate of the Directorate General of Taxation, on March 20, 2012</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"> </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">(folios 372 to 432 of volume V of the administrative file "Determinativo)</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"> </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">Likewise, i</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">n official letter </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">D</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">JMH-229</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">-2013 </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">of February 7, 2013</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">, the Legal Directorate of the Ministry of Finance </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">forwarded the recommendation for a declaration of partial harmful nature (lesividad) against resolution number TFA-114-2012 of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal, based on the opinion issued by the Directorate General of Taxation, in official letter DGT-598-2012 of July 18, 2012 </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">(folios 1 to 22 of volume VI of the administrative file)</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">. Based on that technical-legal opinion, by resolution </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">number 139</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">-2013</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"> </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">of February 22, 2013</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">, the</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;"> Minister of Finance declared harmful (lesivo) to the fiscal and economic interests of the State </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">the </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">aforementioned </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">ruling </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">number </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">,</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;"> issued</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;"> by the First Chamber of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">in favor of Banco BCT </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">(folios 23 to 34 of volume VI of the administrative file)</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">. As can be observed, </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">that declaration of harmful nature (lesividad) was issued within the year following the moment when the improper monophasic controller body informed the A quo Administration of what was resolved by virtue of its appellate competence. From that moment, namely March 20, 2012, the natural superior was materially and legally able to take cognizance of an act that could be potentially harmful to the fiscal, economic, or public interests that he must protect and, therefore, was empowered to exercise his powers to declare that formal conduct harmful (lesiva) </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">-only insofar as it recognized as deductible expenses those of a financial nature </span><span data-mce-style="color: #101010; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(16, 16, 16); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">associated </span><span data-mce-style="color: #242424; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(36, 36, 36); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">with liquidity reserves, and for revoking what was resolved by the lower body regarding the</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"> </span><span data-mce-style="color: #0f0f0f; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(15, 15, 15); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">-</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">, as it ultimately did by issuing resolution </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">114</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">-2012</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"> </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">of March 12, 2012</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">. Finally, </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">the complaint that is the subject of this proceeding was filed on</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;"> February 20, 2014</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">, that is, within the year following the administrative declaration of harmful nature (lesividad) </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">(folio 259 of the judicial file)</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">.</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;"> Moreover, the complaint was filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic against the banking entity that benefits from the partially challenged act, meaning that, in terms of both active and passive standing, the referenced requirements are met. Finally, and contrary to what the representatives of Banco BCT maintain, the resolution by which the Minister of Finance declared ruling number TFA-114-2012, issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal, harmful to the economic and fiscal interests of the State, is not contrary to the provisions of Article 136 of the General Law of Public Administration, as is evident from the following partial transcription of that act: </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">"…it is improper to recognize for THE TAXPAYER Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima, the income obtained through operations and investments abroad with capital generated within the national territory, as part of its activity, which is managed and developed within the national territory, such that the income generated by such investments are not capital located outside the national territory but rather constitute monetary sums generated through the intermediation activity that it carries out in Costa Rica (</span><span data-mce-style="color: #20272e; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(32, 39, 46); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">…) In the present matter, the taxpayer Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima is obliged to build (sic) the reserve for the minimum legal reserve requirement (encaje mínimo legal), but is not obliged to establish the liquidity reserve, as established by the Central Bank of Costa Rica (…) Thus, having clearly established that the minimum legal reserve requirement (encaje mínimo legal) and the liquidity reserve are not synonymous, this Office considers that with the interpretation of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal treating both concepts as the same, the expense would be duplicated for the same purpose…" (folios 22 to 35 of volume VI of the administrative file).

Consequently, the fact that the defendant entity does not agree with the reasoning used by the Minister of Finance to support his decision to declare partially detrimental to the public interest the resolution TFA 114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Court does not imply a violation of the provisions of Article 136 of the General Law of Public Administration. Thus, the examination of the present action now proceeds.

In the first instance, and based on numerals 62 and 117 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, as well as on the documents visible on folios 325 and 326 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file; 30 and 31 of volume VI of the administrative file, and on the testimony of the expert witnesses Esteban Barrantes Paniagua and Mario Alfaro Navarro -see digital recording of the trial hearing held on 10-12-2019, which is in the associated documents folder of the virtual file-, this collegiate body considers that both the liquidity reserve (reserva de liquidez) and the minimum legal reserve requirement (encaje mínimo legal) correspond to an amount that must be "reserved" by financial intermediation institutions to guarantee their liquidity, and that the difference between the two lies in which type of institution must hold one or the other, so that, technically, a Bank could not be obligated to maintain both the minimum legal reserve requirement and the liquidity reserve, at least not as understood in accordance with the provisions of numeral 117 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank. In the same vein, this Court considers that matching maturities (calce de plazos) corresponds to a methodology for establishing a minimum liquidity factor for financial entities, which allows them to meet their obligations within the agreed-upon timeframes in the course of their ordinary activity, through liquid assets that generate both taxable and non-taxable income (whether because they are not subject to income tax or because they are taxed with another tax) and that, therefore, are not related from a technical point of view to the so-called liquidity reserve (digital recording of the statements of expert witnesses Esteban Barrantes Paniagua and Mario Alfaro Navarro, given at the trial hearing of 10-12-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file).

Based on the foregoing, it is considered that considerando IX of resolution TFA-114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Tax Court (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo), titled "Liquidity Reserve," is contradictory to what that same body indicated in considerando VIII of that same ruling, regarding the analysis it carries out concerning the issue of proportionality, and its application as established in numerals 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its Regulations (Reglamento) (see folios 401 to 430 of volume V of the "Determinative" administrative file). This is because, in considerando VIII related to the "Application of the Proportionality Criterion and Consequent Rejection of Expenses Associated with Non-Taxable Income," the Administrative Tax Court held -in what is relevant- that "...It must be emphasized that what was applied was appropriate, since all costs and expenses according to financial statements were used indistinctly to produce taxable and non-taxable income subject to profit tax and therefore such expenses reported by the intervened party cannot be applied solely to taxable income, but rather to all income obtained in the fiscal periods under study, since it is evident that the total business-operational structure (technical, professional, and administrative) includes the planning, coordination, execution, and control of all business activities and functions, aimed at achieving taxable and non-taxable income..." (folio 411 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file; the highlighting is not from the original); however, in considerando IX called "Liquidity Reserves," the Administrative Tax Court held that "... the deduction of a sum must be admitted and has been admitted (different from that of the proportionality discussed in the previous considerando), representative of those interest payments corresponding to the payment for bank deposits from public investments, and that have also been arranged or placed in temporary investments for the purpose of constituting liquidity reserves (...) In accordance with what has been set forth herein and in relation to the issue of the constitution of liquidity reserves and their generation of related financial expenses, and admitting as suitable and legal documentary evidence for the purpose of determining the admissible percentages to accept as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income, and having reviewed the calculations made by the intervened party, the proper course is to admit the percentages of 23.20%, 29.46%, 25.28%, 36.54%, 29.55%, 32.64%, and 35.87%, according to the information certified by the Super Intendencia General de Entidades Financieras (SUGEF)..." (folios 425 to 429 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file).

Notwithstanding that this contradiction becomes evident again, when it is considered in the final part of that same considerando IX, that "... The arguments related to this aspect regarding the constitution of liquidity reserves should not be applied to the taxpayer's claims in the sense that it should also be admitted in relation to the other operating and administrative expenses incurred in the audited fiscal periods, because what is admitted under said concept is solely and by way of exception, with respect to the interest related to the constitution of such liquidity reserves, as has been amply explained in this resolution, in addition to the fact that admitting such claims would violate the figure of proportionality applied in these proceedings and would admit, in contradiction to what is prescribed by law for this type of taxpayer, the application of the source-based income (renta producto) in which it is indeed possible to deduct all expenses related to the taxable income..." (reverse of folio 429 of volume VI of the "determinative" administrative file).

On the other hand, this single-phase, non-hierarchical controller of legality also incurs a technical imprecision, as it is strikingly evident how it uses the terms liquidity reserve and minimum legal reserve requirement as if they were the same concept, since it even maintains that "...all the arguments of this Court regarding the admissibility of those financial expenses related to the constitution of liquidity reserves are based on the same tax principles that the administration has used for the purposes of the minimum legal reserve requirement..." (reverse of folio 428 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file), an assertion that would only be acceptable if the Administrative Tax Court were referring to the liquidity reserve that those financial intermediation entities not obliged to maintain the immobilized funds of the minimum legal reserve requirement must maintain; but the truth is that in this case, it refers to matching maturities or the minimum liquidity factor, which is not the same as the liquidity reserve. This collegiate body considers that a technical imprecision of this nature cannot be overlooked, even less so when dealing with the administrative body that, by the nature of the function it performs (single-phase, non-hierarchical controller of legality in tax matters), is obliged to be technically and conceptually precise. Consequently, the discussion about whether or not it is appropriate to recognize the minimum liquidity factor or matching maturities related to one or three-month investments made by Banco BCT from an excess liquidity as deductible expenses, and whether such recognition must be made through the proportionality established in articles 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its regulations, lacks interest in principle, since the Administrative Tax Court does not refer to those points but to the liquidity reserve; without prejudice that said body also omitted to indicate in its resolution whether the minimum liquidity factor or matching maturities were or were not contemplated in the assumptions to which the Tax Administration had already applied the proportionality (see in a similar sense, judgments number 95-2009-V at 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019, and 103-2019-V at 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019, issued by the Fifth Section of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court).

• b)On the scope of judgment 94-2013-V in the specific case. Without prejudice to the foregoing and given the arguments raised by the representative of Banco BCT, this Court deems it necessary to determine the scope of judgment 94-2013-V issued at 1:30 p.m. on September 26, 2013, by Section V of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court, and from the foregoing, establish whether or not it is applicable in this case. In that sense, as the attorneys for Banco BCT affirm, in said ruling it is held that "...there exists a series of norms and principles that govern financial intermediation activity, so the examination of the issue requires an integral treatment in accordance with the fulfillment of one of the objectives of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, which is the promotion 'of a stable, efficient, and competitive financial intermediation system' (article 2 of Law 7558). For the purpose of complying with said objective, the concerned Administration has established a series of regulations in order to control the functioning and control of financial entities and to promote favorable conditions to strengthen the liquidity and solvency of the financial system. In this line, such entities are subject to supervision by the Superintendencia de Entidades Financieras, which has among its powers that of overseeing their actions, always under the guiding principle that they must maintain a high level of solvency and a low level of risk, thereby strengthening the liquidity and stability of the intermediation system. Hence, a series of regulations are issued whose purpose is to ensure that financial entities adjust to certain efficiency parameters. One of these normative provisions is precisely Agreement SUGEF-24-00, approved by the Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero through article 8 of the minutes of session number 197-2000, held on December eleventh, two thousand, in which the Regulations for Judging the Economic-Financial Situation of Supervised Entities (Reglamento para Juzgar la Situación Económica-Financiera de las Entidades Fiscalizadas) were approved. Said regulatory body defines six different types of risks: solvency risk, liquidity risk, interest rate variation risk, exchange rate risk, credit risk, and operational risk. When referring to liquidity risk, it indicates that it 'Originates when the financial entity does not possess the liquid resources necessary to meet its demands or obligations to third parties in the short term.' From the content of this definition, as well as from the objectives of the Central Bank of Costa Rica previously outlined, it is clearly inferred that companies or entities engaged in financial intermediation activity are obliged to maintain a minimum liquidity, since only this allows for a stable financial system, as otherwise the level of risk would increase. This is even more evident, if it is taken into consideration that one of the elements taken into account by the Superintendencia when judging the economic-financial situation of the entities is precisely liquidity (...) It is therefore an obligation that also allows its operation, since otherwise, the entity would be exposed to a negative rating by the Superintendencia, and an abnormal functioning of the entity would occur. Thus, liquidity being an essential operating norm in this type of entities, it is clear to this Deciding Body that the costs implied by compliance with this obligation constitute useful and necessary expenses to generate taxable income, and therefore translate into deductible expenses, under the provisions of articles 1, 7, 8, and 14 of the Income Tax Law..." (the highlighting is not from the original).

Now, in that same judgment it is indicated that "...Articles 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its Regulations, provide for the treatment that must be given to cases in which taxpayers, when developing a profit-making activity, generate taxed and non-taxed income and expenses associated with both types of income." This is relevant if we recall that pursuant to Articles 7 and 14 of Law No. 7092, the taxable income (renta imponible) is the net income of the taxpayers, that is, "the result of deducting from the gross income the useful, necessary, and pertinent costs and expenses to produce the profit or benefit, and the other outlays expressly authorized by this law, duly supported by vouchers and recorded in the accounting," from which it follows that expenses linked to non-taxable income cannot be deducted, and that in the case of outlays linked to taxable activities but also associated with non-taxable activities, the deduction must be made proportionally. The legal system allows the taxpayer to establish that proportion; however, when, as in this case, the system used by the taxpayer is not reliable, it falls to the Tax Administration to apply the system established in the legal system. In this regard, the final paragraph of Article 7 of Law No. 7092 provides: "Article 7.- (...) When the authorized costs, expenses, or outlays are incurred to produce taxable or exempt income indistinctly, only the proportion corresponding to taxable income shall be deducted." And for its part, the first paragraph of Article 11 of the Regulations establishes: "Article 11.- Income is determined by deducting from gross income the useful, necessary, and pertinent costs and expenses permitted by law. When expenses, costs, and outlays are incurred to produce taxable and exempt income indistinctly, only the proportion corresponding to taxable income must be deducted. When the taxpayer cannot duly justify a different proportion, they must deduct the sum resulting from applying the percentage obtained by relating taxable income to total income." Consequently, this Collegiate Body considers that the application of the proportionality system performed is appropriate and in accordance with the provisions of the Law and its Regulations, <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;">which clearly establishes that in those cases in which the taxpayer has outlays linked to taxable and non-taxable income, and cannot adequately justify a proportion different from that established in the legal system, the formula provided for that purpose shall be applied</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;">…” (emphasis not in original). </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;">Consequently, while it is true that the Tax Administration could recognize the expenses related to compliance with the minimum liquidity factor, in a proportion different from that established in the final part of Article 11 of the Regulations to the Income Tax Law; it is also true that those expenses must be duly justified in the accounting records of the taxable person (sujeto pasivo), in order to determine which are the non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income and which correspond to deductible expenses associated with taxable income, which is essential in those cases </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;">-such as the one before us-</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;"> in which Banco BCT has produced taxable or exempt income indistinctly.</span> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;">The foregoing becomes relevant in the specific case, because in this type of tax, it is the taxable person themselves who, through their tax return (declaración), determines the amount to be paid for said tax. However, within the framework of the liquidation of a tax obligation such as the one under examination, the Tax Administration proceeds to verify the data in order to confirm the elements of the return filed, with the data held by the taxpayer, and it is upon the latter that the burden of proof falls regarding those facts related to the reduction of the tax base. Such is the meaning of the provisions established in numerals 128 and 140 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), 19 of the General Regulation on Tax Management, Oversight, and Collection (Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria), Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) number 29264 of January twenty-first, 2001 </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;">(all in force at that time)</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;">. Article 19 of the aforementioned regulation expressly stated that: </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;">"…The burden of proof falls on the Tax Administration regarding the constitutive facts of the tax obligation, while it falls on the taxpayer, responsible party, or declarant regarding the impeding, modifying, or extinguishing facts of the tax obligation. In this sense, it will correspond to the latter, as the case may be, to demonstrate the facts that constitute their costs, expenses, liabilities, tax credits, exemptions, non-subjections, deductions, and in general, the tax benefits they claim exist in their favor."</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;"> Thus, the validity of the self-assessment (autodeterminación) made by the taxpayer regarding non-deductible expenses, associated with non-taxable income, and consequently, the deductible expenses associated with taxable income, is subject to verification, and it corresponds to the taxpayer, in this case, Banco BCT, to prove the accuracy of the self-assessed amount, which must be demonstrated through the accounting system of said banking entity, which, necessarily, must conform to generally accepted accounting principles, pursuant to the provisions of precept 57 of the Regulations of the Income Tax Law, Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 18445-H, and should clearly reflect the amount of non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income. Without prejudice, of course, to the modifications to the Chart of Accounts for Financial Entities published in La Gaceta number 77 of Wednesday, April 21, 2004, a document according to which, account code number 819 is added, which allows control and identification of non-deductible expenses associated with income not subject to the payment of the Income Tax </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;">(folios 125 and 126 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file)</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;">.[...]</span></span></p><p><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">VI.- ON </span><span data-mce-style="color: #0c0c0c; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; color: rgb(12, 12, 12); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">THE INCOME OBTAINED FROM OPERATIONS AND INVESTMENTS CONDUCTED WITH FOREIGN COMPANIES</span><span data-mce-style="color: #0c0c0c; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; color: rgb(12, 12, 12); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">.</span><span data-mce-style="color: #0f0f0f; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; color: rgb(15, 15, 15); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;"> F</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">irst of all, </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">what </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">is under discussion is</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"> </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">the territoriality of the income.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"> </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">I</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">n</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;"> this regard, Article 1 of the Income Tax Law indicates that the tax subjects income, profits, or benefits from Costa Rican sources, those arising from services rendered, goods located, or capital used in the national territory, obtained during the fiscal period in accordance with the provisions of the law. The State's representative is correct that this is an aspect that has been addressed by the judgments issued in this jurisdiction, as well as by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in the judgments indicated in her filing brief, specifically in resolution 671-F-S1-2010 of nine hours ten minutes on May twenty, two thousand ten, when it indicates that to define territoriality, the circumstances in which the income originates must be assessed</span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">. In that sense, said Chamber has considered that </span><span data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">"...</span><span data-mce-style="color: #04070c; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(4, 7, 12); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;"> according to what will be set forth, the direct error alleged is not apparent; hence, the arguments outlined cannot be accepted. According to what was indicated by the challenger, canon 1 of the LIR was improperly applied or erroneously interpreted by the Tribunal; given that it was interpreted that the </span><span data-mce-style="color: #04070b; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(4, 7, 11); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">“</span><span data-mce-style="color: #04070c; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(4, 7, 12); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;"> overnight</span><span data-mce-style="color: #04070b; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(4, 7, 11); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;">”</span><span data-mce-style="color: #04070c; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(4, 7, 12); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;"> transactions have a territorial nature and therefore are subject to tax imposition. The rule in question, in relevant part, states</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"> </span><span data-mce-style="color: #04070b; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(4, 7, 11); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">“…</span><span data-mce-style="color: #03060a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(3, 6, 10); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;"> ARTICLE 1.- Tax covered by the law, chargeable event (hecho generador) and taxable matter. A tax on the profits of companies and individuals who develop lucrative activities is established. The chargeable event of the tax on the profits referred to in the preceding paragraph is the perception of income in cash or in kind, continuous or occasional, from any Costa Rican source. This tax also applies to income, continuous or eventual, from Costa Rican sources, perceived or accrued by individuals or legal entities domiciled in the country</span><span data-mce-style="color: #04070b; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(4, 7, 11); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">…”</span><span data-mce-style="color: #03060a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(3, 6, 10); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;"> From said rule, it can be concluded that Costa Rica has a territorial tax system and from which an objective element is imposed regarding the activities subject to said tax levy, namely, the principle of </span><span data-mce-style="color: #04070b; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(4, 7, 11); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">territoriality</span><span data-mce-style="color: #03060a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(3, 6, 10); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">. According to that principle, for the income to be taxed, it must </span><span data-mce-style="color: #04070b; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(4, 7, 11); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">be generated</span><span data-mce-style="color: #03060a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(3, 6, 10); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;"> on national soil; what is important is that the service rendered, the good located, or the capital used has its genesis in the country.</span><span data-mce-style="color: #04070c; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(4, 7, 12); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;"> Now then, to determine whether the profits must be taxed in accordance with that cited element of territoriality, this deciding body has repeatedly stated that it is necessary to take into consideration the place where that income originates, using for this purpose the concept of Costa Rican source. </span><span data-mce-style="color: #03060a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(3, 6, 10); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">Income, profits, or benefits from Costa Rican sources must be understood as those arising from services rendered, goods located, or capital used in the national territory.</span><span data-mce-style="color: #04070c; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; text-transform: none;" style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(4, 7, 12); font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline;"> In this sense, see ruling no. 617-2010 of 9 hours 10 minutes on May 20, 2010, and no. 945 of 10 hours on December 7, 2005. (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Res: 000326-A-S1-2017, of ten hours fifty-five minutes on March twenty-third, two thousand seventeen. The emphasis does not correspond to the original).</span> For its part, in judgment number 94-2009 handed down by Section VII of this Court at two o'clock in the afternoon on September thirtieth, two thousand nine, it was held that: "The principle of territoriality is not limited to a merely spatial reference, but rather encompasses all those cases in which the activity carried out by the taxpayer generates income directly linked to the economic structure or source from which it derives, that is, Costa Rican territory and economic structure." Consequently, it is not the case that the mere circumstance of income being produced abroad triggers the exemption of that income automatically, through the application of the extraterritoriality rule; on the contrary, the conditions surrounding the matter must be analyzed. Based on the foregoing, this Court considers that indeed, as determined by the Tax Administration in decisions DT10R-058-08 of 12:00 o'clock on April 30, 2008; AU10R-076-08 of 12:00 o'clock on June 3, 2008, both issued by the Large Taxpayers Administration of the Directorate General of Taxation, and TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 o'clock on March 12, 2012, those incomes must be understood as taxable when they arise from operations carried out with capital from Costa Rican sources, as is the case here, without abusively interpreting the criterion of territoriality contemplated by both the Income Tax Law and its regulations; quite the opposite, extracting this criterion from the literal wording of the rule, which speaks of income from Costa Rican sources. Moreover, when it is held as not proven that the incomes declared as non-taxable and which were considered by the Tax Administration within the assessment process as taxable, were not the product of Costa Rican sources and the Bank's usual business, within the national territory (considering II, section a of this judgment). Due to the foregoing, the criterion developed by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Court in considering VI and in the operative part related to that aspect in decision number 114-2012 of 11:00 o'clock on March 12, 2012, must be declared injurious to the interests of the State, insofar as it ordered: "...The appealed decision is revoked regarding the adjustments: (...) B) TAXABLE INCOMES DECLARED AS NON-TAXABLE, (Interest income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies)..." (see in a similar sense, judgments number 95-2019-V of 10:30 o'clock on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V of 1:30 o'clock on December 10, 2019; 77-2019-VIII of 08:00 o'clock on September 4, 2019, all from the Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Court).

VII.- REGARDING THE COGNIZANCE PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY BANCO BCT AND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE SO-CALLED ABC METHODOLOGY PROMOTED BY THE ASOCIACIÓN BANCARIA COSTARRICENSE. Regarding the validity of the procedure followed by the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense to achieve the approval of the methodology called ABC and the possibility that it binds Banco BCT, this collegiate body shares the criterion contained in judgment number 77-2019 of 08:00 o'clock on September 4, 2019, handed down by the Eighth Section of the Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Court. In that sense, it is necessary to define, in the first place, what is understood by an interested party, it being the criterion of this Court that, starting from Article 15 of the Code of Standards and Procedures, it would be the taxpayer of the tax who would have to make the request to bind both themselves and the Administration to its result, since the aforementioned rule is the one that defines who the subjects intervening in the tax relationship are, which would be the active party, i.e., the entity or body creditor of the tax, and the passive party, which would be the person obligated to the fulfillment of tax obligations, whether in the capacity of taxpayer or responsible party. Now then, without prejudice to the fact that in this specific case it is deemed accredited that Banco BCT is part of the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense (ABC) (folio 170 of the judicial case file), it is also true that, even though the ABC could deduce a mediate interest in the matter, it is not a subject of the tax obligation in question, and therefore it would not have standing for the petition filed before SUGEF and the DGT, for the purpose of authorizing the application of the methodology for the calculation of non-deductible financial expense, non-deductible administrative expense, and non-deductible exchange rate differential expense. Furthermore, even under the assumption that the ABC did have standing and that Banco BCT is part of it, according to the very text of Article 102 of the Code of Tax Standards and Procedures, for a matter of such significance as the utilization of the methodology in question to have —in principle— an effect that would bind the Administration and grant, in turn, a favorable and consolidated situation for the taxpayer, it would be through the consultation of Article 119 of the CNPT, as indicated by the same rule (102 of the CNPT). For these purposes, the Court agrees with what was stated by the Contraloría General de la República (CGR) in report DFOE-IP-06-2005, regarding the necessity of the consultation, as well as with what was decided by Section VI of this Court, in judgment 127-2013-VI, of two forty-five in the afternoon on October twenty-first, two thousand thirteen, in which it is established: “…IV.- On the figure of the tax consultation. The topic of the characteristics, legal nature, and scope of the tax consultation, from a generic standpoint, was already submitted to this Court's knowledge and was the subject of analysis in a case similar to the present one, which led to judgment number 102-2012-VI of 4:20 p.m. on June 4, 2012, issued by this same Section VI. Such a position is therefore assumed as the baseline for the analysis of the present case. Regarding the tax consultation, it is worth noting what is set forth below. In the field of legal-tax relations generated between the Tax Administration (Treasury) and the taxpayers (or responsible parties), as a derivation of legal certainty and security, for the purpose of providing greater clarity and precision to the scope and projection of the content of the formal and material duties of the obligated parties, the legal system confers a series of powers on the Treasury that precisely seek to delimit the scope of the rules regulating the aforementioned obligation relations. In this line, part of these competencies are directed at issuing general rules that facilitate the correct application of tax rules. This is a generic competence contained in canon 99 of the Code of Tax Standards and Procedures, which enables, ex officio, the issuance of interpretive guidelines or institutional criteria that seek, it is insisted, to delimit the way in which a specific tax rule is to be understood in general contexts. Nevertheless, the same reasons indicated enable taxpayers to formally request from the Tax Administrations a consultation on the criterion to be applied to a specific and concrete tax situation, in which they have some degree of reasonable doubt regarding the way to proceed in order to comply with their formal or material obligations. Numeral 119 of the Code of Tax Standards and Procedures regulates the minimum elements and procedural framework of this institute. In this case, reference will be made to the version of that rule prior to the reform carried out by Law No. 9069, given that it was the one applicable on that consultation date (March 14, 2011), and in accordance with what is stipulated by ordinal 9 of the Code of Tax Standards and Procedures. Note that Law No. 9069, which reformed, among multiple rules, the aforementioned canon 119, comes into effect as of its publication, which was finalized in Supplement No. 143 to the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 188 of September 28, 2012. Ergo, the rules that this new legislation imposes cannot be applied to the present case, since the consultation is dated prior to that effective date. Having made that clarification, it is worth indicating, the previous version (applicable to the case) of that mandate stated: Digitally signed by: “Article 119.- Consultations. Anyone who has a personal and direct interest may Consult the Tax Administration on the application of the law to a concrete and current factual situation.

For this purpose, the consultant must set forth in a special writing, clearly and precisely, all the constitutive elements of the situation giving rise to the inquiry (consulta) and may also express their reasoned opinion. The note or writing in which the inquiry is formulated must be presented with a faithful copy of the original, which, duly stamped and with an indication of the date of its presentation, must be returned to the interested party as proof.

An inquiry (consulta) presented before the expiration of the deadline for filing the sworn declaration (declaración jurada) or, as applicable, within the term for payment of the tax (tributo), exempts the consultant (consultante) from penalties for the excess resulting from the administrative resolution, provided said excess is paid within thirty days following the date of notification of the respective resolution. The Administration has forty-five days to evacuate the inquiry, and if it does not issue a resolution upon the expiration of said term, the interpretation of the consultant shall be deemed approved, if the consultant has set it forth.

Said approval is limited to the specific case inquired about and does not affect taxable events occurring after the notification of the resolution that the Administration may issue in the future.

Any inquiry evacuated based on inaccurate data provided by the consultant is null and void." For its part, the tax inquiry procedure (consulta tributaria) is further regulated in Section II of Chapter VI of the General Regulation on Tax Management, Supervision, and Collection, Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 29264-H (RGGFRT). In view of that provision (Art. 119 CNPT), it is the criterion of this Court that the purpose of the tax inquiry (consulta tributaria) mechanism is to delimit the interpretation and application of a specific tax provision to a concrete case, according to the meaning given to it by the Tax Authority (Fisco), in order to grant the taxable person (sujeto pasivo) a criterion regarding the matter consulted, thus providing security in their actions.

Now, from this perspective, what is resolved within an inquiry procedure (consulta) generates a criterion to which the taxable person must submit, insofar as it establishes the manner in which their tax situation is to be understood in accordance with the rules governing it. It is an institution that allows the taxable person to request a prior pronouncement from the Administration regarding the understanding and/or scope of a tax provision in a specific case. In this regard, reference may be made to the statement by Section II of this Court, in decision No. 225 at 10:00 a.m. on June 23, 2009. That said, it should be noted that the tax inquiry (consulta tributaria) constitutes a mechanism that allows taxable persons to have clarity and certainty in the actions they must adopt regarding the formal and material duties of tax obligations.

The Costa Rican tax system is based on a scheme of self-determination (auto-determinación), self-declaration (auto-declaración), and self-assessment (autoliquidación), meaning that it is the taxable person who, in the first instance, delimits the content and amount of their tax obligations, declares them, and pays them; thereafter, the supervisory powers of the Tax Administrations emerge. Depending on the correct exercise of tax duties, they may make determinations that increase the tax base (base imponible), include income or activities not declared by the taxable person, and eventually, not only adjust the contributory duty but also exercise external sanctioning powers, whether for the concurrence of administrative infractions or tax offenses. Thus, the inquiry procedure (consulta) allows the taxpayer to obtain a pronouncement from the Tax Authority that, undoubtedly, indicates the manner in which, in the specific case consulted, they must act to proceed in accordance with their tax duties. Subsequently, if they act in a contrary manner despite being instructed otherwise through that procedure, the tax non-compliance is evidenced with greater rigor; or, if they act in the terms indicated by the Administration, such compliance, being supported by the criterion of the consulted body or instance, will be in good faith and imbued with legitimate expectation (confianza legítima). Consequently, it is unfeasible for them to be subsequently reproached for potential tax omissions, provided that the factual conditions of the declaration are the same as those submitted for inquiry, since if they are variable or different, that criterion will not be applicable. This is because the public decision would address the inquiry of specific situations, so that upon weighing the factual-legal assumptions a, b, and c, decision X is issued. Then, if the effective situation forming the basis of the declaration is dissimilar to the one consulted (e.g., b, c, and d), decision X is no longer applicable, and in that case, that criterion would no longer protect the taxable person. The opposite would lead to an abuse of right and to extending, by way of conjecture, the resolution of a specific inquiry to conditioning assumptions that were not present at the time the conditioned effect, issued via consultation, was made.

From this standpoint, while it can be said that the resolution of an inquiry does not generate a perfected subjective right, as the conditions between the inquiry and the declaration may vary, certainly, in the judgment of this collegiate body, it does generate an effect of certainty in favor of (or against) the consultant, which cannot later be ignored, and which means that if the declaration or determination is made in accordance with what was set forth in the inquiry, it is inadmissible to require behaviors different from those guided by the Tax Authority itself. The contrary would lead to the nonsense that, despite having an interpretative guideline formally issued by a competent authority regarding specific situations, the Administration could ignore it and impose not only increases in the taxpayer's tax quota, but eventually apply interest, fines, and administrative sanctions upon them, leading, in that hypothesis, to arbitrariness and inequity to the detriment of the administered party, who, along those lines, adjusted their behavior to what the Tax Authority indicated at the time. It is reiterated, this is always provided that the inquiry-declaration conditions are the same. Ignoring what was resolved in a tax inquiry procedure (consulta tributaria) would empty the very purpose of that procedure and would lead to the illogic of having an administrative opinion that ultimately generates no certainty, since it could later be disregarded, even with regard to the situations that were consulted.

Hence, one of the requirements of the tax inquiry is the current nature of the question and its relation to a specific fiscal period and tax (tributo), which will be addressed below.

V.- Now, this type of procedure must not be confused with simple administrative petitions, regulated in precept 102 of the Code of Tax Provisions and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios). Their requirements are diverse given the specialty and specificity of what is petitioned, as are the time limits available to the Administration. It is therefore pertinent to specify the requirements for tax inquiries (consultas tributarias).

Provision 119 of the CNPT sets the following requirements: a) Existence of a personal and direct interest of the taxpayer regarding a doubt; b) application to a specific and current factual situation; c) the formulation of the inquiry in a clear and precise writing, expressing the reasons for the situation giving rise to the inquiry, as well as the legal-interpretative criterion of the consultant regarding the specific situation set forth; and d) presentation of the original and a faithful copy, duly stamped and with an indication of the date of its presentation. For its part, canon 124 of the RGGFRT establishes the following requirements: a) To raise the specific and current factual situation, based on exact data; b) To set forth clearly and precisely all the constitutive elements of the situation giving rise to the inquiry; c) To indicate the name of the interested party or parties in the case; d) To indicate the tax or taxes (tributos) affected, with their respective fiscal periods; e) To express the reasoned opinion of the consultant; f) The writing in which the inquiry is formulated must be presented with a faithful copy of its original; the official of the Tax Authority who receives it must acknowledge receipt thereof by stamping the office seal, indicating the date of presentation and their full name, both on the copy to be returned to the interested party and on the original. On the other hand, the Administration has a period of 45 business days to resolve the inquiry, which, if overlooked, gives way to the application of the figure of positive silence (silencio positivo), by virtue of which, the interpretation provided by the consultant is deemed approved, provided that such criterion has been set forth. The foregoing is always provided that the data submitted are true and with the warning that this aspect is limited to the specific case, without it being able to affect subsequent events. That said, it should be noted that the prior existence of pronouncements, interpretative guidelines, or similar from the Tax Authority that bear some degree of relation to the object of the inquiry does not, in all cases, prevent the possibility of formulating this type of procedure, since doubts may well arise as to whether those provisions are fully applicable to the specific factual situation consulted. The power to attend to inquiries of this nature stems from the normative function of the Tax Authority, which, according to numeral 118 of the RGGFRT, has the purpose of ensuring the correct and uniform application of the tax provisions regulating the taxes administered by the Dirección General de Tributación” (the highlighting is not from the original).

Based on the foregoing, this Court agrees with the criterion outlined by the state representation that official letter DGT-1659-03 of December 2, 2003 (folio 86 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file (expediente administrativo "determinativo")), is a simple opinion, and that the procedure to obtain -in principle- the legal consequences of legitimate expectation (confianza legítima), good faith, legal certainty, and the intangibility of one's own acts, should have followed the procedure established in numeral 119 of the Code of Tax Provisions and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), which the Bank's representation was not unaware of, since, due to the special nature of its commercial line, it has constant technical advice and it is scarcely credible that on a matter as sensitive as this, it would not have sought advice from specialists.

Therefore, both due to the lack of standing (legitimación) of ABC, and due to the manner chosen to do so, there existed no act capable of binding the Tax Authority to the Bank, regarding the use of the methodology, nor one that authorized it for its use in the period to be declared, nor to rectify prior periods. On this point, it is necessary to highlight that SUGEF itself expressly stated that the methodology was not authorized for tax purposes but rather for accounting purposes -see folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; evidence file for "report DFOE-IP-06-2005"-, therefore, regardless of whether it remains in force or not, it is not in force for those purposes; likewise, there is no act of the Tax Authority that expressly and directly authorized Banco BCT to use that methodology and to rectify declarations for fiscal periods prior to the year 2003 under the terms of numeral 119 of the Code of Tax Provisions and Procedures - in force at that date - (it does not appear from folios 82 to 86 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file (expediente administrativo "determinativo"); see folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; evidence file for "report DFOE-IP-06-2005"), therefore, the audit (fiscalización) carried out, which concludes in the contested determination (determinación impugnada), was appropriate not only because of the precedent of the report by the Contraloría General de la República (CGR), but also because of the obligations imposed by the legal system for the benefit of adequate tax collection (recaudación de los tributos). In that sense, it is worth highlighting that the CGR indicated very serious objections regarding the ABC methodology, as it caused a higher deduction of deductible expenses to be applied, leading to a tax reduction, an aspect that could have been debated both in the determinative procedure and in this venue, but which was not done, despite having had the opportunity for its defense with the possibility of providing the respective evidence. Also, considering that the petition was not raised by the party with standing (persona legitimada), and that it was not made in the manner prescribed by the legal system, it becomes unnecessary to refer to the content of official letter DGT 1659-03 regarding whether an authorization could be inferred from it, since, as indicated, Banco BCT was able and was also required to know that for the use of that methodology to be authorized, it had to resort to the inquiry (consulta) provided in Article 119 of the Code of Tax Provisions and Procedures, a situation that also distorts the principle of good faith, as well as the application of the principle of legitimate expectation (confianza legítima).

This collegiate body adds that, furthermore, the administrative act authorizing a specific conduct must be express, a situation that could only be achieved through the consultation, so grammatical interpretations are not acceptable, regarding official communication DGT 1659-03 from the Director General of Taxation. Nor does a declared subjective right exist in favor of Banco BCT, so the principles of intangibility of one's own acts and non-retroactivity cannot be invoked, nor the obligation to resort to the lesividad process or the procedure for evident and manifest nullity established in the General Public Administration Law, because it is reiterated once more that the Tax Administration did not specifically authorize the banking entity to use the methodology, nor can a subjective right be deduced from the actions of an Association that is not a taxpayer, despite the fact that Banco BCT is an active member of said association. On the other hand, the fact that the Dirección General de Hacienda, through resolutions number DGH-042-2012 at 11:30 a.m. on December 12, 2012; DGH-029-2013 at 3:33 p.m. on August 23, 2013; DGH-030-2013 at 3:35 p.m. on August 23, 2013; and DGH-031-2013 at 3:43 p.m. on August 23, 2013, all issued by the Dirección General de Hacienda (images 123 to 149 of the judicial file), ordered the condonation of interests in favor of Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, Banco BAC San José, Banco Scotiabank de Costa Rica, S.A., and Banca Promérica, S.A., generated by the ex officio determinations made by the Subgerencia de Fiscalización of the Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes regarding the fiscal periods from 1992 to 2005, does not constitute, in the judgment of this Court, suitable proof that the principle of legitimate expectations (principio de confianza legítima) was harmed to the detriment of Banco BCT. This is because, although it is true that said resolutions are based on the premise that there is “…an error by the Administration that simultaneously caused the taxpayer to be induced to make errors when determining its obligations…”; it is also true that in the same formal acts, two reasons are adduced that prove the contrary, namely: 1) “…That the taxpayer, relying on the criterion given in the official communication, proceeded to rectify the income tax returns for the fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 and filed returns for the fiscal periods 2003, 2004, and 2005, using for such purposes the aforementioned methodology…” (emphasis not in original). It should be remembered that SUGEF itself expressly indicated that the methodology was not authorized for tax purposes but rather for accounting purposes, and that there is no act by the Tax Administration that expressly authorized Banco BCT for its use and for the rectification of returns for fiscal periods prior to the year 2003 under the terms of article 119 of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures -in force at that date-. 2) “…Subsequently, through auditing actions by the Administration, differences are determined against the taxpayer that originated because the taxpayer prepared its returns relying on the questioned official communication and the Administration determined that the correct approach was to do so in accordance with the Income Tax Law (articles 7 of the Law and 11 of the Regulation). Furthermore, the Tax Administration itself has managed to demonstrate that there is a contradiction between the content of the indicated regulations and official communication 1659-03, and the regulation of higher rank must prevail…” (emphasis not in original). In that sense, it is insisted -as was considered supra- that Banco BCT was not in a position to claim ignorance of the fact that for the possible authorization of the use of the ABC methodology, it had to resort to the consultation provided for in article 119 of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures (in force at that time), a situation that disproves the principle of good faith. Lastly and without prejudice to the foregoing, it is necessary to state that in accordance with the principle of legal reserve in tax matters (article 5, subsection a of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures, in force at that time), only through formal and material law can the tax calculation bases be determined -among other aspects-, for which reason, neither SUGEF nor the DGT could have validly authorized the use of the methodology for tax purposes, since that would have implied -in principle- a modification of the income tax calculation base provided for in article 7 of the law regulating that tax, in those cases of taxable persons (sujetos pasivos) that generate both taxable and non-taxable income with that tax -as occurs in this specific case-. Consequently, the application of the provisions of articles 10 and 12 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System and 129 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, in relation to the scope of the powers granted therein to SUGEF, must be carried out based on the principle of legal reserve in tax matters (see in a similar sense, judgments 95-2019-V at 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V at 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019; 77-2019-VIII at 08:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, all from the Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda Court). [...]

IX.- REGARDING EXCHANGE DIFFERENCES FROM OTHER INVESTMENTS AND OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT ABROAD. In that regard, this Court considers what is set forth below. The tax on profits in general terms has as its taxable event (hecho generador), as indicated by article 1 of the Income Tax Law -in force at that time-, the perception of Costa Rican-source income, in the following terms: "The taxable event of the tax on profits referred to in the preceding paragraph is the perception of income in cash or in kind, continuous or occasional, coming from any Costa Rican source.

This tax also levies income, continuous or occasional, from a Costa Rican source, received or accrued by individuals or legal entities domiciled in the country; as well as any other income or benefit from a Costa Rican source not exempted by law, (...) For the purposes of the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, income, revenue, or benefits from a Costa Rican source shall be understood as those arising from services rendered, goods located, or capital used in the national territory, which are obtained during the tax period in accordance with the provisions of this law." Similarly, Articles 5 through 7 and 81 of the same law prescribe the method for determining the taxable base, which, in general terms, is the deduction from gross income—which includes all income—of those costs that are useful and necessary for the production of the profit or benefit, as well as any other permitted by law. For its part, Article 8 of the Reglamento to the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta—in force at that time—established: "Gross income. It consists of the total income or benefits, in cash or in kind, continuous or occasional, received or accrued during the tax period and coming from any Costa Rican source from the activities referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 1 of the law. It also consists of exchange differences originating from assets in foreign currency, related to the ordinary course of business operations of the taxpayers." Since financial intermediation is the main activity of Banco BCT, which leads it to place the resources it receives from investors to obtain better returns, as well as to lend them to deficit agents in need of those resources, the required habitualness is configured, which means that the exchange differential arising from the internalization of resources is subject to the profits tax, which would lead to declaring the nullity of the TFA's resolution, regarding the recognition that was made to the Bank for that item. At this point, it is necessary to highlight that the legal representatives of Banco BCT indicate that it is inappropriate to levy tax on the income obtained from exchange differentials for income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies -with the exceptions established by law- given that numeral 1.3 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 28590-H establishes that "...In accordance with Article 10 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional and the Chart of Accounts for Financial Entities, valuation adjustments shall not be taken into account for determining the net profits of banks...". Notwithstanding that, according to the principle of tax legality set forth in Article 5, subsection a) of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios in force at that time, exemptions from a tax obligation are a matter reserved for law, and therefore, an exoneration cannot be established by means of a regulatory provision; it is also true that the application of the provisions of numerals 10 and 12 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional and 129 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica, in relation to the scope of the powers granted therein to SUGEF, must be carried out precisely in accordance with the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. In this regard, this Court shares the criterion contained in the determinative resolution number DT10R-058-08 of 12:00 hours on April 30, 2008, issued by the Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes of the Dirección General del Tributación, which regarding this point considered: "... The transcribed legal provision does not concern the taxation of exchange differences being discussed in this lawsuit, but rather the establishment of reserves related to exchange rate fluctuations and their deduction for purposes of determining the net profits of banks. Indeed, one thing is the taxation of the exchange differential due to discounts and capital gains generated by adjustments for changes in the realizable value of investments, investments in dollars subject to withholding tax, exempt investments in dollars, among others, under the provisions of Articles 1, 5, and 81 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta and 8 of its reglamento, and a completely different thing are the so-called reserves for exchange rate fluctuations, which financial entities regulated by the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras are required to establish and which, according to the cited decree, shall not be taken into account to determine the net profits of banks. In other words, no sum is being rejected for reserves for exchange rate fluctuations; rather, what is being done is taxing income derived from the exchange differential resulting from the development of its usual activity, namely financial intermediation..." (folios 194 to 195 of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo"; the highlighting is not from the original). Consequently, and for all the foregoing reasons, the argument is unfounded and must be declared as such (see in a similar vein, judgments 95-2019-V of 10:30 hours on November 18, 2019; 77-2019-VIII of 08:00 hours on September 4, 2019, all from the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda)." 2. In the alternative, and should the claim of nullity regarding the administrative procedure pursued against my Client not succeed, I request a declaration of partial nullity of the following administrative acts, to the extent that they contain provisions detrimental to my Client: Resolution DT10R-058-08, of twelve o’clock on April thirtieth, two thousand eight, issued by the Large Taxpayers Administration of the DGT; Resolution TFA No. 114-2012, of eleven o’clock on March twelfth, two thousand twelve, by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Tribunal. Consequently, that the legal situation of my Client be re-established, considering that the declarations for the audited periods were made in conformity with the Legal System, and that the payments made in respect of Income Tax were correct and in accordance with Law, without there being any basis whatsoever for them to be varied or altered by the Administration.

**3.** In the alternative, and should the Court consider that there is no ground for nullity in any of the actions challenged herein, I request that liability for lawful conduct and normal functioning of the State be declared, it being appropriate to request that, due to the exceptional intensity of the injury and the small proportion of those affected, it be declared that there is no basis whatsoever for the imposition of interest and penalties related to the tax adjustments made in the challenged acts.

**4.** From the perspective of claims 1 and 2, I request that, upon the claim being upheld, the State be ordered to pay costs, in accordance with article 193 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure.

**5.** In accordance with articles 46 subsection e), 60 subsection 3), 68 subsection 4), 90 subsection 2), 110, 145 subsection a) and concordant articles of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure, the refund of the amounts paid on April 2, 2014, plus their respective interest generated from the moment of payment until the date of their effective refund is requested...” (folios 76 and 77, 216 and 365; digital backup of the preliminary hearing of 10-22-2014 and trial of 12-10-2019).

**2.-** The State's representative filed a negative answer to the claim, raised the defense of Lack of Right; requested that all of the plaintiff's claims be rejected as unfounded; that the claim filed against the State be declared without merit and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay both costs, as well as the interest that said sums generate from the finality of the judgment until their effective payment. Finally, she indicated that she waived the conciliation hearing (folios 84 to 118 of the judicial file).

**3.-** The claims of the State – which were set at the preliminary hearing held on June 24, 2015 – are for the judgment to: “... **1.** That the nullity of the ruling of the Tax Administrative Tribunal, First Chamber, No. **114-2012,** of 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012, be declared, for being contrary to Law and harmful to the public and economic interests of the State, **only** with respect to the revocation of the following adjustments: **A)** The income obtained from operations and investments carried out with foreign companies; **B)** Financial expenses associated with "liquidity reserves". **2.** That it be declared that the resolution of the General Directorate of Taxation, Large Taxpayers Administration, No. DT10R-058-08, of 12:00 hours on April 30, 2008, in what is the object of the challenge, is in accordance with Law. **3.** That in case of opposition to this claim, the personal and procedural costs of the litigation plus any eventual interest derived from them are to be borne by the defendant…” (folios 286 and 357 verso of the judicial file; and digital backup of the preliminary hearing of 06-24-2015).

**4.-** The representative of Banco BCT, S.A. filed a negative answer to the claim; raised the defense of lack of right; requested that the claim presented by the State be denied in all its aspects, and that it be ordered to pay both costs in this process (folios 292 to 316 of the judicial file).

**5.-** The preliminary hearing corresponding to file 13-001793-1027-CA was held starting at 13:29 hours on October 22, 2013, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is added to the file in a special bundle (folios 214 to 219 of the judicial file).

**6.-** That by resolution number 070-2014 issued at 3:06 p.m. on September 26, 2014, the Fifth Section of the Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal ordered: “…The joinder of the process processed under file No. 14-001246-1027-CA to the one processed under file No. 13-001793-1027-CA is ordered. Proceedings in the latter are suspended until the former reaches the same procedural stage, at which time the physical joinder of the files must proceed. A copy of this resolution must be added to file No. 14-001246-1027-CA…” (folios 253 to 254 of the judicial file).

**7.-** The preliminary hearing corresponding to file 14-001246-1027-CA was held at 13:35 hours on June 24, 2015, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is added to the file in a special bundle (folios 357 to 358 of the judicial file).

**8.-** By resolution of 08:15 hours on July 28, 2015, Section V of the Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal ordered: “…Proceed to the physical joinder of file 14-001246-1027-CA to file l3-001793-1027-CA, as had been ordered in resolution 070-2014-V of fifteen hours six minutes on September twenty-sixth, two thousand fourteen.” The processing of this proceeding is suspended until the Unconstitutionality Action being processed before the Constitutional Chamber under case file No 14-012592-0007-CO is resolved…” (folios 360 to 361 of the judicial file).

**9.-** That by order issued at 2:15 p.m. on February 14, 2018, it was ordered: *“…Given that the unconstitutionality action processed under case file number 14-012592-0007-CO —which caused the suspension of proceedings in this main action— was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, through judgment number 2017-015495 issued at 11:40 a.m. on October 4, 2017, and its operative part was published in the Judicial Bulletin numbers 201, 202, and 203 of October 25, 26, and 27, it is resolved: based on the trial scheduling agenda of this Section and without prejudice that —if possible— the parties will be duly notified of a closer hearing date, they are hereby summoned, in accordance with the provisions of articles 99 and following of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, to the oral and public trial to be held in **SALA UNO** of this Court, starting at **EIGHT THIRTY IN THE MORNING ON DECEMBER 10, 13, AND 18 OF THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND NINETEEN…”* (images 435 to 437 of the trial scheduling order, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file).

**10.-** By resolution issued at 8:21 a.m. on December 2, 2019, the request filed by the representative of Banco BCT was resolved, in the following sense: *“…it is necessary to indicate that in accordance with the provisions of the order scheduling the oral and public trial issued at 2:15 p.m. on February 14, 2018 (images 435 to 437 of the virtual file as of the date this resolution was issued), **the parties and their witnesses were summoned to attend the hearing for all three days.** This is because, while it is true that this is a complex proceeding —given that the claim for declaration of nullity (lesividad) filed by the representative of the State was consolidated— in which there are 5 witnesses to be examined; it is also true that the unfolding of the hearing is an aspect that cannot be predicted, since it depends on multiple factors related to the behavior of the parties during the proceeding; equipment operation; among other aspects. **Therefore, it is necessary to have the presence of all admitted witnesses,** so that they are available to render their testimony at the moment the Court so requires, unless there is a justified cause that **prevents them from appearing from the first day for which they were summoned, which is not accredited in this case.** In any case, it is worth recalling that the trial scheduling order was notified to the representative of Banco BCT on February 14, 2018, while the reminder for the oral and public trial was notified on November 22, 2019; therefore, the necessary logistics so that the witnesses of the plaintiff party could attend the Court's summons from the first day set for the trial hearing, **should have been foreseen by the banking entity with due anticipation…”*** (images 1 to 2 of the resolution of 12-02-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file).

**11.-** The oral and public trial hearing was held starting at 08:50 a.m. on December 10, 2019, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file. During this hearing, the Court deemed the testimony of witnesses Nombre71895 , Nombre115096 , and Nombre113731 to be waived; with the consent of both parties, opening statements were dispensed with and the time that was to be granted for that purpose was credited for use during the closing arguments phase; the remaining testimonial evidence admitted for Banco BCT and the State was examined; and subsequently, the representatives of the Bank and the State presented their closing arguments. Upon concluding, the Court verified the means of notification and indicated that the judgment would be issued in writing, within the fifteen-business-day period provided in subsection 1) of article 111 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, as it is a complex proceeding and in whose calculation the collective holiday closure must be taken into consideration *—which includes December 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, and 31, 2019, and January 2 and 3, 2020—* approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in session number 86-19, article XLV *(see digital record of the oral and public trial hearing of 11-22-2019).*- **12.-** In the proceedings before this Court, no nullities have been observed that must be corrected or that cause defenselessness, and this judgment is issued within the period established in article 111, subsection 1) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, **which expires on January 14, 2020,** given that the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in session number 86-19, article XLV, approved the collective holiday closure, which includes December 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, and 31, 2019, and January 2 and 3, 2020**.- ***Drafted by Judge Álvarez Molina, with the affirmative vote of Judge Sánchez Navarro and Judge Giusti Soto; and,*** **C O N S I D E R I N G:** **I.- PROVEN FACTS:** The following facts relevant to this proceeding are deemed duly accredited: **1)** That in a brief received on October 15, 2003, the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense submitted to the Superintendente General de Entidades Financieras a formal request for authorization for the calculation and recording of the non-deductible financial expense, non-deductible administrative expense, and the non-deductible exchange differential expense of financial institutions. *“…Therefore, we request: A) That financial entities be authorized to calculate the non-deductible financial expense; non-deductible administrative expense; and the non-deductible exchange differential expense, in accordance with the methodology detailed in the attached document, and its recording in memorandum accounts. B) Authorization to make the corresponding adjustments for the 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 periods, in accordance with the proposed methodology and the recording of said adjustments in memorandum accounts. C) Authorization to allow the adjustment of the indicated periods to be applied to accumulated earnings…”* (folios 68 and 69 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); **2)** Through official communication SUGEF-4406-2003/09032 of October 31, 2003, the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras stated regarding the request and the methodology of the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense: *“…Due to the fact that the accounting guidelines issued by this Superintendency do not allow for the specific and punctual association mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the implementation of a viable and verifiable model that allows determining the financial, operational, and exchange differential expenses associated with the resources that constitute the excess liquidity maintained by the entities, would, to a large extent, solve that need for information. In accordance with the procedures for obtaining the calculations indicated above and based on the implicit assumptions, we consider that the methods analyzed in this document constitute a viable application tool, which uses variables derived from the provisions of standards issued by this Superintendency and which, therefore, are susceptible to verification. Likewise, its nature is congruent with that of the ultimate objective of said methods; that is, to obtain data that allows associating with the assets that make up the excess liquidity maintained by the entities, the financial, administrative, and exchange differential costs or expenses, and the income they generate that can be attributed to them on an estimated basis "* (folios 82 to 85 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file; the highlighting is not from the original); **3)** In a communication identified as ABC-264-2003 of November 13, 2003, addressed to the Director General de Tributación, the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense states in summary *"... 3. The Association wishes to issue a recommendation to its members so that, based on the indicated methodology, the banks proceed to calculate and record the non-deductible financial expenses, the non-deductible administrative expenses, and the non-deductible exchange differential expense. The foregoing will also necessarily lead them to have to rectify the tax returns for the detailed periods. 4. Due to the importance of the matter and the acts involved in its implementation, we wish to request this Directorate to issue a ruling confirming the appropriateness of the methodology validated by SUGEF, as the suitable and correct means to calculate the non-deductible financial expenses, the non-deductible administrative expenses, and the non-deductible exchange differential expense, so that the banks may proceed to make the corresponding calculations and records and thus comply with the provisions of article 7 of the Income Tax Law and article 11 of its Regulations. 5. We make this request based on article 102 of the Tax Procedure Code…”* (evidence file of Report DFOE-IP-06/2005; the highlighting is not from the original); **4)** Through official communication SUGEF 4634-2003 dated November 20, 2003, the Superintendente General de Entidades Financieras sent the Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero the draft modification to the Chart of Accounts for Financial Entities so that it could be sent for consultation to the financial system, noting that *“…The implementation of this modification will allow supervised entities to have a tool for the control and recording of non-deductible expenses associated with income not subject to income tax payment…"* (Evidence File of Report DFOE-IP-06-2005); **5)** That the Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero, ordered in article 10 of the Minutes of Session 406-2003 of December 2, 2003, to send for consultation to the entities, financial groups, and representative chambers of the financial sector, the draft modification of the Chart of Accounts for financial entities *(folios 120 to 125 of volume V of the “Determinative” administrative file);* **6)** That through official communication DGT-1659-003 of December 2, 2003, the Director General de Tributación informed the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense that: *“…By this means, I am pleased to respond to your communication ABC-0264-2003. We have reviewed the methodology proposed in the communication dated October 15, 2003, and its annexes, and approved by the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras, in official communication SUGEF 4406-2003/09032, for calculating the non-deductible financial expense and the non-deductible exchange differential expense. This office wishes to inform you that it considers the indicated methodology to be reasonable and correct, for the purposes of calculating the non-deductible financial expense, the non-deductible administrative expenses, and the non-deductible exchange differential expense of the banks of the national banking system…"* (folio 86 of volume V of the “Determinative” administrative file; the highlighting is not from the original); **7)** That through official communication SUGEF 4796-200309032, dated December 2, 2003, addressed to the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense, the Intendente stated: *“... we inform you that on November 27th last, this Superintendency proposed to CONASSIF a proposal to modify the Chart of Accounts for financial entities to proceed with the opening of subaccounts and analytical accounts that allow the recording and identification of non-taxable income and non-deductible expenses, used in the calculation of income tax. On the other hand, regarding what was requested in point 3 of your communication, aimed at granting authorization for the accounting adjustments generated by the correction of income tax returns for prior periods to be made against accumulated earnings, we wish to indicate that in our view, this type of correction qualifies at the accounting level as a fundamental error. Consequently, and in accordance with the current Chart of Accounts for Financial Entities, these adjustments must affect the accumulated earnings of prior years and specifically, in the case at hand, account 352 "Accumulated losses from prior years…"* (folio 87 of volume V of the “Determinative” administrative file; the highlighting is not from the original); **8)** By official communication SUGEF 974-2004 of March 15, 2004, the Intendente General indicated to CONASSIF that: *“…On the occasion of your consultation, the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense observed that the inclusion of a memorandum account identifying "Expenses for impairment of investments in securities and estimation of uncollectibility of the loan portfolio not deductible" does not correspond to the purpose of the modification, since it is a clearly identified deductible expense in the income statement account 420 "Expenses for impairment of investments in securities and estimation of uncollectibility of the loan portfolio". This observation was evaluated and accepted by the Superintendency and constitutes the only change in the project compared to the original proposal. Therefore, we submit the draft reforms to the "Chart of accounts for financial entities," duly modified, for your approval…”* (evidence file of Report DFOE-IP-06/2005); **9)** Through Official Communication CNS 269-04 of April 13, 2004, the Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero informed the Superintendente General de Entidades Financieras that: *“…1.- Agreed to modify the Chart of Accounts for Financial Entities so that the subaccounts and analytical accounts are added, in accordance with the following text (...). 2.- The modifications to the Chart of Accounts for Financial Entities set forth in numeral 1 above are effective upon their publication in the Official Gazette "La Gaceta…"* ; which was published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta on April 21, 2004 *(folios 125 to 126 of volume V of the “Determinative” administrative file; evidence file of Report DFOE-IP-06/2005);* **10)** That through official communication number DGT-2351-2004 of October 8, 2004, the Director General de Tributación responded to communications FOE-IP-261 of September 2 and FOE-IP-304 of October 4, both of 2004, sent by the Contraloría General de la República, at which time, he indicated —as relevant— that: *“…once the methodology was approved by SUGEF, it was submitted for consultation to the Dirección General de Tributación, which approved it, on the basis that it had been approved by SUGEF, which is the technical body of the Public Administration competent to authorize the methodology for determining and accounting for the Banks' expenses. The Dirección General de Tributación ruled positively, also on the basis that the methodology meets the requirements of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo and this Dirección General de Tributación. Once the methodology was approved by the Dirección General de Tributación, the banks proceeded to correctly record their expenses for the periods not subject to audit and made the modifications and rectifications to the tax returns. Likewise, they proceeded to make the corresponding payments for the rectified periods…”* (folios 13 to 15 of the judicial file; folios 71 and 134 of volume III of the "Work Papers" administrative file); **11)** That the Contraloría General de la República sent formal communications to the Dirección General de Tributación, in order to gather the necessary information to carry out the corresponding analysis regarding the methodology of the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense, communications: 2101 of February 23, 2005 FOE-IP-0059, 2229 of February 25, 2005, FOE-IP-0065 *(evidence file of “Report DFOE-IP-06/2005”)* ; **12)** That the Dirección General de Tributación met the requirements of the Contraloría through communications: GGC-067-2005 of March 14, 2005, and DGT-369-2005 of March 4, 2005 *(evidence file of “Report DFOE-IP-06/2005”);* **13)** Through communications 2886 of March 11, 2005, FOE-IP-0081, 3004 of March 15, 2005, FOE-IP-0082; 3625 of April 1, 2005, FOE-IP-0095; 3974 of April 12, 2004, FOE-IP-0098; the Contraloría requested a series of information from SUGEF *(evidence file of “Report DFOE-IP-06/2005”);* **14)** Through Official Communication SUGEF 1216-200502862 of March 16, 2005, SUGEF sends the Contraloría General de la República official communication SUGEF 4338-2003/09032 of October 24, 2003; in SUGEF 1292-200502937 of April 7, 2005, it referred to communication No. 3004 of March 15, 2005; in SUGEF 1508-2005 of April 15, 2005, it referred to communication No. 3974 of April 12, 2005 *(evidence file of “Report DFOE-IP-06/2005”);* **15)** That on June 16, 2005, the División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa, Área de Ingresos Públicos of the Contraloría General de la República, issued report No. DFOE-IP-06/2005, called “Report of the Special Study Conducted at the Dirección General de Tributación,” in which it issued the following provisions: *“… **4.1. To the Minister of Finance:** **a)** Take immediate and pertinent actions so that it is definitively determined whether the Methodology for the calculation and recording of non-deductible expenses, associated with non-taxable income of banking entities of the National Banking System, submitted to the DGT and SUGEF, is consistent with the tax calculation base established in the Income Tax Law 7092 and also, whether based on the situations noted regarding the decisions of these latter entities, it is appropriate to annul the decision on the Methodology, and issue any other resolution that may eventually be necessary, with the purpose of dimensioning its effects and adopting the appropriate actions.* The actions taken must be coordinated with the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras and carried out with the assistance of the Procuraduría General de la República when appropriate and in accordance with its powers, and regarding said actions, due process must be observed with respect to the financial entities of the Sistema Bancario Nacional, as relevant. b) Carry out, within the framework of the powers of the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) and in accordance with the auditing programs and procedures, and in light of the information set forth in this report, the auditing actions regarding the banking entities of the Sistema Bancario Nacional, as appropriate. c) Issue the corresponding measures so that an administrative investigation is immediately conducted within this ministry concerning the facts discussed in this report and any other situation related to this case. If appropriate, any potential liabilities and sanctions must be established, in accordance with the principles and procedures of due process, and all other pertinent legal measures must be adopted, including the referral of this case to the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) if applicable. d) Issue the necessary guidelines so that henceforth, in applicable cases, the regulations, resolutions, or criteria issued by the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), which according to the legal system must be supported by legal, economic, and other types of studies, are prepared by the specialized technical bodies of the Administration and are recorded in the respective case files. e) Issue the corresponding instructions so that a review is conducted of the regulations (decrees, rules, resolutions, or criteria) pertaining to the non-taxable income (ingresos no gravables) and non-deductible expenses (gastos no deducibles) referred to in this report, for the purpose of making any adjustments that may eventually be appropriate, all in accordance with the current tax legal framework. f) Notify this Contraloría General, within the next fifteen business days, of the measures adopted to comply with the provisions contained in this report. This office must arrange what is necessary for the immediate compliance with said provisions, as well as for it to carry out periodic follow-up to guarantee their adequate and timely compliance, and so that the decisions and resolutions pertaining to each provision are duly supported by the corresponding technical and legal criteria, and fully adjusted to the legal system. This office and this Contraloría must be kept periodically and timely informed of the actions taken in relation to the above provisions, until their full compliance. 4.2. To the Superintendente General de Entidades Financieras. a) Adopt, in accordance with its powers, any actions that may eventually be pertinent, with respect to what was resolved by that superintendency in relation to the Methodology, in coordination with the Ministerio de Hacienda and the Procuraduría General de la República, when appropriate, with the corresponding observance of due process, if applicable. b) Issue the corresponding measures so that an administrative investigation is immediately conducted within that Superintendency concerning the facts discussed in this report and any other situation related to this case. If appropriate, any potential liabilities and sanctions must be established, in accordance with the principles and procedures of due process, and all other pertinent legal measures must be adopted, including the referral of this case to the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público), if applicable. c) Immediately arrange the corresponding actions so that henceforth, the regulations, resolutions, or criteria issued by that Superintendency, in accordance with the legal system, are coordinated with the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), when appropriate. d) Notify this Contraloría General, within the next fifteen business days, of the measures adopted to comply with provision 4.2.a)…” (folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; the highlighting is not from the original); 16) In a brief received on July 5, 2005, the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense proceeded to argue before the Contralora General de la República the subsidiary appeal filed against Report No. DFOE-IP-06/2005 (evidentiary file of the “Report DFOE-IP-06/2005” and folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005); 17) That by Official Letter 10763-CO-0581, resolution R-CO-R-87-2005, at 08:00 hours on September 2, 2005, the Contralora General de la República ordered: "…Based on the considerations set forth, the appeal and concomitant nullity plea filed by Mr. Nombre3850, in his capacity as president and legal representative of the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense, directed against Report DFOE-IP-06/2005, issued by the División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa, Área de Ingresos Públicos of this audit body, is rejected for lack of standing. The administrative remedy is hereby exhausted." (evidentiary file of the “Report DFOE-IP-06/2005” and folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005); 18) That by Interpretative Directive number DGT-16-05 of December 19, 2005, the Acting Directora General de Tributación ordered - as relevant -: “…This directive renders null and void the criterion expressed in the official letter from the Dirección General de Tributación No. DGT-1659-03 of December 2, 2003, as well as any other criterion that opposes it totally or partially or that has been interpreted differently than what is set forth below…” (folios 88 to 91 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 19) That by statement of charges (traslado de cargos) number 275200016552 issued on November 13, 2007, by the Tax Administration of Large Taxpayers (Administración Tributaria de Grandes Contribuyentes) of the DGT, it was indicated that, in accordance with the ex officio assessment made, the tax obligation of Banco BCT is as follows:

This is because the "…Banco BCT S.A., filed amended Income Tax returns (Impuesto sobre la Renta - Impuesto a las Utilidades) for fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 (…), and the Income Tax returns (Impuesto sobre la Renta - Impuesto a las Utilidades) for the fiscal periods 2003, 2004, and 2005 (…) using a different methodology from the proportionality established in Article 7 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) and Article 11 of its Regulations (Reglamento), for the purpose of calculating non-deductible expenses (gastos no deducibles) associated with non-taxable income (ingresos no gravables); said methodology is not accepted by the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), as indicated below: (...) In accordance with reiterated rulings of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, among which is No. 201-2005 dated May 12, 2005, among others, it was established that the proportion indicated in Article 7 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) and Article 11 of its Regulations (Reglamento) is a correct method for allocating expenses to non-taxable income (ingresos no gravables) and the only thing that could be questionable is that the variables affecting said proportion were not determined correctly. By report No. DFOE-IP-06/2005 of June 16, 2005, the CONTRALORÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA questioned the methodology used by the banking entities, because it was not consistent with the provisions of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) No. 7092, of April 21, 1988. Because said methodology does not associate non-deductible expenses (gastos no deducibles) with sources of non-taxable income (ingresos no gravables), but rather with a so-called excess liquidity, which is determined excluding securities of more than one month and is multiplied by a significantly reduced financial cost rate, resulting in an underestimation of non-deductible expenses (gastos no deducibles) and consequently an overestimation of deductible expenses, which in turn underestimates the net income. By Directive No. 16-05 dated December 19, 2005, the Dirección General de Tributación rendered null and void Official Letter No. DGT-1659-03 of December 2, 2003…" (folios 1 to 9 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 20) That by determinative resolution number DT10R-058-08 issued at 12:00 hours on April 30, 2008, by the Administration of Large Taxpayers (Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes) of the DGT, it was ordered: "…The challenge briefs, as well as the nullity plea, the exceptions, and the appeal for reversal with subsidiary appeal to the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo concomitantly filed by Mr. GERARDO ULLOA CASTRO, in his capacity as General Manager without sum limit of BANCO BCT SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, against the statement of charges and observations (traslado de cargos y observaciones) No. Identificacion614 corresponding, the first, to the Income Tax for Fiscal Periods 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 (…), are hereby declared without merit. Consequently, an increase is determined with respect to what was declared in the sums of ¢97.540.626,00 (ninety-seven million five hundred forty thousand six hundred twenty-six colones without centimos), ¢99.923.021,00, (ninety-nine million nine hundred twenty-three thousand twenty-one colones without centimos), ¢108.779.953,00 (one hundred eight million seven hundred seventy-nine thousand nine hundred fifty-three colones without centimos), ¢174.664.230,00 (one hundred seventy-four million six hundred sixty-four thousand two hundred thirty colones without centimos), ¢233.139.234,00 (two hundred thirty-three million one hundred thirty-nine thousand two hundred thirty-four colones without centimos), ¢89.575.289,00 (eighty-nine million five hundred seventy-five thousand two hundred eighty-nine colones without centimos), and ¢103.793.249,00 (one hundred three million seven hundred ninety-three thousand two hundred forty-nine colones without centimos), (…) for a total of ¢909.416.202,00 (nine hundred seven million four hundred sixteen thousand two hundred two colones, without centimos)…” (folios 142 to 225, 11 to 52 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 21) That by resolution AU10R-076-08, also issued by the Administration of Large Taxpayers (Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes), at 12:00 hours on June 3, 2008, it was ordered: "…The appeal for reversal, as well as the nullity plea filed by Mr. GERARDO ULLOA CASTRO, in his capacity as General Manager without sum limit of BANCO BCT SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, against what was resolved by this Unit in resolution No. DT10R-058-08 at twelve hundred hours on April thirtieth, two thousand eight, are hereby declared without merit. The appeal to the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo is admitted…" (folios 237 to 263, 226 to 235 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 22) By interlocutory resolution INTER No. 084-2010 at 08:50 hours on April 28, 2010, the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo requested from SUGEF the following information related to Banco BCT: "…the amounts or quantities that the aforementioned entity maintains in liquid assets or liquidity reserves, which allow it to meet its obligations within the agreed terms in its ordinary activity of financial intermediation (intermediación financiera). The foregoing is required in relation to the fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.

It is clarified that the foregoing request concerns the referenced liquid assets (activos líquidos) and not the percentage corresponding to the legal reserve requirement (encaje legal) maintained as a mandatory reserve at the Banco Central de Costa Rica (…) In the relevant part, it is requested, if possible, both the reference of the amounts allocated for the constitution of such liquid assets (activos líquidos), in relation to the entity’s public deposits (captaciones del público), and the representative percentage between said deposits and the constitution of such liquid assets…” (folios 325 to 327 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file; the highlighting is not from the original); 23) In official letter SUGEF 2207-201004134 of July 8, 2010, the Dirección General de Servicios Técnicos of SUGEF informed the Investigating Judge of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo that “…We refer to the interlocutory resolution INTER No. 084-2010, received by this Superintendency on April 30, 2010, by which the following is requested regarding the entity “Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima”: (…) In relation to the foregoing, we would like to inform you that the information requested is not required by the Superintendency in the terms indicated in your official letter. The "Chart of accounts for financial entities, groups, and conglomerates" establishes the accounting structure: classes, groups, accounts, subaccounts, and analytical accounts, which financial intermediaries must use. According to the Chart of accounts, entities must classify their accounts into the following classes: 110 Cash and cash equivalents (disponibilidades), 120 Investments in financial instruments, 130 Loan portfolio, 140 Accounts and commissions receivable, 150 Realizable assets, 160 Equity participations in other companies, 170 Premises, furniture, and equipment, 180 Other assets, 190 Investment properties. Regarding class 110 "Cash and cash equivalents (disponibilidades)," according to what the chart of accounts establishes, it "comprises assets that, due to their liquidity, have immediate availability. Therefore, it includes cash, precious metals and remittances in transit, demand deposits and checking accounts at the Banco Central de Costa Rica, domestic and foreign financial entities, and documents for immediate collection (...) On the other hand, regarding class 120 "Investments in Financial Instruments," the chart of accounts establishes in the concept of this account that it "represents a contract that simultaneously gives rise to a financial asset in one entity and a financial liability or an equity instrument in another company or entity, which may or may not be incorporated in a document, that due to its own legal configuration and transfer regime can be traded in a financial market or on a recognized and duly regulated stock exchange" (…) Having made the foregoing clarifications, I hereby send you the balance of accounts 110, 120, 211, and 213, as of December 31 of the indicated years, as they were reported to this Superintendency by the respective entity.

(folios 334 to 336 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 24) That as a result of the request for information filed by Banco BCT on November 4, 2011, SUGEF issued the certificate number SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 at 14:00 hours on January 25, 2012, a document in which it indicates that the data “…correspond to the accounting and financial information sent by Banco BCT S.A.

and Financiera Londres Ltda, to this Superintendency, and which is available in our databases for the periods between 1999 and 2002, inclusive…” and which refers to “the balances of the requested accounting accounts, as well as the 3-month maturities in national currency and foreign currency” (folios 342 to 346 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 25) That by written submission dated February 22, 2012, the representative of Banco BCT presented before the Administrative Tax Tribunal, not only the copy of the certification issued by SUGEF on January 25, 2012, referred to in the preceding section, but also, based on said information, proceeded to determine the percentages for the liquidity factor for each of the audited fiscal years, dividing the total of 3-month average maturities adjusted for volatility by the total average financial liability, obtaining the following result:

(folios 357 to 364 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 26) That by resolution number TFA-114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Tax Tribunal, at 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, it was ordered: “…The filed nullity plea is dismissed without merit. The appealed resolution is revoked regarding the adjustments: (…) B) TAXABLE INCOME DECLARED AS NON-TAXABLE, (Interest income obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies) (…). The appealed resolution is partially revoked regarding the adjustment for NON-DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH NON-TAXABLE INCOME AND DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH TAXABLE INCOME, with the percentages of 23.20% for 1999, 29.46% for 2000, 25.28% for 2001, 36.54% for 2002, 29.55% for 2003, 32.64% for 2004, and 35.87% for 2005, being accepted as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income, for the concept of “financial expenses interest” for attracting resources to constitute liquidity reserves, rejected by the Tax Administration. In all other respects, the appealed resolution is confirmed. The A Quo administration shall proceed to liquidate and notify said act to the taxpayer in accordance with the provisions of articles 40 and 163 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures…” (folios 1 to 52 of volume II of the determinative administrative file); 27) That resolution number TFA-114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Tax Tribunal, at 11:00 a.m. on March 30, 2012, was communicated to the Directorate of Oversight of Large National Taxpayers of the Directorate General of Taxation, on October 31, 2011 (folio 432 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); 28) By resolutions number DGH-042-2012 at 11:30 a.m. on December 12, 2012; DGH-029-2013 at 3:33 p.m. on August 23, 2013; DGH-030-2013 at 3:35 p.m. on August 23, 2013; and DGH-031-2013 at 3:43 p.m. on August 23, 2013, the Directorate General of Finance ordered the forgiveness of interest in favor of Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, Banco BAC San José, Banco Scotiabank de Costa Rica, S.A., and Banca Promérica, S.A., generated by the ex officio determinations made by the Sub-Management of Oversight of the Large Taxpayers Administration regarding the fiscal periods between 1992 and 2005 (images 123 to 149 of the judicial file); 29) That by payment vouchers dated April 2, 2014, Banco BCT S.A. paid the amounts determined by the Tax Administration, for the concept of income tax corresponding to the fiscal periods between 1999 and 2005, given that -as indicated by one of the legal representatives of Banco BCT during the sanitization stage of the oral and public trial hearing held on December 10, 2019- the Tax Administration resolved to forgive the interest on said items for Banco BCT (folios 226 to 231 of the judicial file; see digital backup of that proceeding contained in the associated documents folder of the virtual file); 30) That by official communication DJMH-229-2013 of February 7, 2013, the Legal Directorate of the Ministry of Finance sent the recommendation for a partial declaration of prejudice to public interest (declaratoria de lesividad) against resolution number TFA-114-2012 of the Administrative Tax Tribunal, based on the criteria issued by the Directorate General of Taxation, in official communication DGT-598-2012 of July 18, 2012 (folios 1 to 22 of volume VI of the administrative file); 31) That by resolution number 139-2013 of February 22, 2013, the Minister of Finance declared the aforementioned pronouncement number TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Tax Tribunal in favor of Banco BCT, harmful to the fiscal and economic interests of the State (folios 23 to 34 of volume VI of the administrative file); 32) That both the liquidity reserve and the minimum legal reserve (encaje mínimo legal) correspond to an amount that must be "reserved" by financial intermediation institutions to guarantee their liquidity, and that the difference between the two lies in which type of institution must maintain one or the other (folios 325 and 326 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file; 30 and 31 of volume VI of the administrative file and the digital backup of the testimony of expert witnesses Nombre115097 and Nombre3984, given at the trial hearing held on 12-10-2019, contained in the associated documents folder of the virtual file); 33) That the term matching (calce de plazos) corresponds to a methodology for establishing a minimum liquidity factor for financial entities, which allows them to meet their obligations within the agreed terms in the exercise of their ordinary activity, through liquid assets that generate both taxable and non-taxable income (either because they are not subject to income tax or because they are taxed with another tax) and that therefore, from a technical point of view, they are not related to what is known as the liquidity reserve (digital backup of the declarations of expert witnesses Nombre115097 and Nombre3984, given at the trial hearing on 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file); 34) That Banco BCT, for the fiscal periods between 1999 and 2002, did not maintain an accounting system that would allow separating non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxed income, and deductible expenses associated with taxed income, while in the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 it applied the so-called Nombre67376 methodology (see folios 71, 134, and 135 volume III of the administrative file work papers; 01, 05, and 06 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file; digital backup of the declaration of expert witness Nombre115097 given at the trial hearing on 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file); 35) That the financial expenses for the minimum liquidity factor or the term matching (calces de plazos) related to the one- or three-month investments made by Banco BCT were recognized by the Tax Administration by applying proportionality over the total financial expenses, after first subtracting in each case the amount for the minimum legal reserve (encaje mínimo legal) (folios 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 81, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 148, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 170, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 202, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, and 212 in the upper right margin of volume I of the administrative file "work papers"; 5 to 8 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file; digital backup of the declaration of expert witness Nombre3984 at the trial hearing on 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file); 36) That SUGEF expressly stated that the methodology was not authorized for tax purposes but for accounting purposes (-see folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; proof brief of "report DFOE-IP-06-2005-); 37) That there is no act by the Tax Administration, in the terms of numeral 119 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures -in force at that date-, by which Banco BCT was expressly and directly authorized to use the Nombre67376 methodology and to rectify the tax returns for fiscal periods prior to 2003 based on it (it does not emerge from folios 82 to 86 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file; see folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; proof brief of "report DFOE-IP-06-2005); 38) That Banco BCT has been an active member of the Costa Rican Banking Association (Asociación Bancaria Costarricense, ABC) since November 21, 1983 (folio 170 of the judicial file); 39) That the prejudice to public interest lawsuit was filed by the representative of the State, on February 20, 2014 (folio 259 of the judicial file).- IIo.- FACTS NOT PROVEN. The following are deemed not proven as relevant to this proceeding: a) That the income declared as non-taxable and that were considered by the Tax Administration within the determination process as taxable, was not the product of a Costa Rican source and from the ordinary business of the Bank, within the national territory (there is no evidence in the file); b) That Banco BCT, S.A., for the implementation of the methodology called ABC, carried out the procedure established in article 119 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (There is no evidence in this regard in the court record); c) That the Tax Administration failed to comply with what was ordered in report DFOE-IP-06-2005, issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic (it does not emerge from the evidence submitted to the court record).

IIIo.- OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING. In the lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, S.A., it seeks a declaration of absolute nullity of the transfer of charges; determination resolutions, issued in the oversight procedure for income tax in periods between 1999 and 2005, as well as resolution 114-2012 issued by the TFA. In the alternative, it requests a declaration of partial nullity of the transfer of charges; determination resolutions, issued in the oversight procedure for income tax in periods between 1999 and 2005, as well as resolution 114-2012 issued by the TFA, in everything that is detrimental to its represented party. In the alternative, if it is considered that there is no ground for nullity, a declaration of the State's liability for lawful conduct and abnormal operation is sought, it being appropriate to request that, due to the exceptional intensity of the injury and the small proportion of those affected, it be declared that there is no basis whatsoever for the imposition of interest and penalties related to the tax adjustments made in the questioned acts. Likewise, the State be ordered to pay both costs, in the event that any of the annulment claims are upheld.

Finally, <span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a">it requests the refund of the amounts paid on April 2, 2014, plus their respective interest generated from the moment of payment until the date of their effective refund.</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">LESIVIDAD: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline">It requests </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#212121">the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">nullity of the ruling of the Administrative Tax Court, First Chamber, No. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">114-2012, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">of 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012, for being contrary to Law and harmful to the public and economic interests of the State, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">only </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">insofar as it revoked the following adjustments: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">A)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f"> Income obtained from transactions and investments made with foreign companies; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">B)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f"> Financial expenses associated with </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#212121">"liquidity reserves".</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#121212">This is because, it considers that -in general terms- said formal conducts are contrary to the principles of legitimate expectations (confianza legítima), good faith, legal certainty, the irrevocability of one's own acts (intangibilidad de los actos propios); non-retroactivity; to the provisions set forth in Articles 10, 12 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System (Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional); 129 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica); 136 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública); 3 of Executive Decree number 28590-H and to what was considered in judgment number 94-2013-V of 13:30 hours on September 26, 2013. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#121212">For its part, i</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">n the claim filed by the State, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#05070a">it requests </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">the nullity of the ruling of the Administrative Tax Court, First Chamber, No. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">114-2012, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">of 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012, for being contrary to Law and harmful to the public and economic interests of the State, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">only </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">insofar as it revoked the following adjustments: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">A)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f"> Income obtained from transactions and investments made with foreign companies; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">B)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f"> Financial expenses associated with </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#212121">"liquidity reserves".</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#16161d">Specifically </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#05070a">insofar as the Administrative Tax Court, despite expressly acknowledging in Considerando VIII that all the arguments allowing the Tax Administration to apply the proportionality criterion to financial entities, regulated in Article 7 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) and 11 of its Regulations (Reglamento), illegally departs from </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0b0b0b">such legal grounds and in absolute contradiction with what was developed in Considerando VI) acknowledges </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0b0b0b">" ... the</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0b0b0b">deduction of an amount (different from the proportionality amount that was heard in the previous considerando, representative of those interests corresponding to the payment for bank deposits (captaciones bancarias) originating from public investments, and which at the same time have been arranged or placed in temporary investments for the purpose of forming liquidity reserves, as has been repeatedly resolved…". </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0b0b0b">Likewise, regarding income obtained from transactions and investments made with companies abroad, it maintains that the concept of territoriality</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0b0b0b"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0b0b0b"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">is not </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">limited </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">to</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">the physical -geographical-</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#313131"> nature, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">it rather responds to an idea </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">of economic </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">order,</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">which cannot </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">be </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">separated from the activity generating the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">profits, since it</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">is closely </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">linked to the economic structure of the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">taxpayer (sujeto activo), </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">with</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">independence from the origin or provenance of the funds used in </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">the businesses </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">and</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">services, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">and from whether </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">these </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">are habitual or occasional</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#313131">. Consequently, it maintains that</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#313131"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#313131"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">what the Tax Administration levies through the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">income tax</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">is precisely that income obtained from investments</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">abroad, which were forged with Costa Rican capital </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">and </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">by</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">virtue of the financial intermediation activity carried out by the</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">banking entity, an activity that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">is </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">managed in </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">its </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">entirety within</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">Costa Rican territory, is </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">linked and connected </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">to the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">economic </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">structure</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">of</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">our country, thus being </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">income </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">from a Costa Rican source that must pay</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:12.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#1b1b1b">corresponding tax.</span></p> <p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span></p> <p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">IVo.-</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline"> PREREQUISITES FOR THE LESIVIDAD PROCEEDING.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> In this case, the State seeks to have resolution number 114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#101010"> Administrative Tax Court, First Chamber, at 11:00 hours on March 12, 2011, declared null and void, for being contrary to law and harmful to the public, fiscal, and </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#242424">economic </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">interests of the State, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">only </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">with regard to the revocation of what was resolved by the then Large Taxpayers Tax Administration, regarding the following </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">adjustments: i) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">For non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income: financial expenses </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#242424">associated </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">with liquidity reserves; b) For taxable income declared as non-taxable (interest income obtained from transactions and investments made abroad)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">. From this standpoint, it is necessary to briefly establish compliance with the various prerequisites imposed by the legal system for the filing of a lesividad proceeding, given that the absence of one of these elements would bar and render unnecessary the examination of the merits. In general, lesividad constitutes a jurisdictional mechanism by virtue of which the Administration seeks the suppression of its own act, which, in principle, generates a favorable effect for a third-party recipient. From that standpoint, in this type of litigation, lesividad is of a subjective nature, insofar as it seeks the annulment of a conduct that grants a right or, in general, a beneficial situation to a person. Said figure is codified in canon 34 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), a norm that establishes the prior elements and procedural regulations of this figure. However, it is also referenced in numeral 173 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). From the perspective of procedural prerequisites, subjective, objective, procedural, and temporal conditions are imposed. Regarding the subjective aspect, the standing to sue (legitimación activa) is granted to the Administration that issued the challenged act, while the defendant with standing (legitimado pasivo) is the recipient of the effects of the conduct, i.e., whoever obtains its benefits. With respect to the objective aspect, lesividad is constituted as a mechanism for the legal elimination of administrative acts that are substantially non-conforming with the legal system, i.e., acts that suffer from some level of invalidity, whether absolute or relative, in any of its typologies (Articles 128, 158, 165, and concordant articles of the cited General Law No. 6227). In that line, the Administration must declare that conduct harmful (lesivo) to public interests, which must be established within a framework of internal actions of the administration that are essential to formulate the action. Indeed, in the procedural order, it is required that the supreme highest head (jerarca máximo supremo) of the respective Public Administration declare the lesividad of the act, whether due to injury to economic, fiscal, or other interests arising from the public interest, for which purpose, they must have a supporting legal-technical criterion to sustain that determination. Unlike other figures for the suppression of public conducts, it does not require a hearing for the third party, but only actions within the Administration itself, it being within the judicial process that the third party may present their defense arguments. However, when the act emanates from the State (see Article 1 of the cited General Law), i.e., from the Central Administration, the claim may only be filed by the Attorney General's Office of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) (canon 16 of Law No. Placa494), upon the prior request of the supreme highest head and prior internal declaration of lesividad, with details of the grounds for that criterion. Regarding the temporal dimension, the procedural rules establish a period of one year counted from the issuance of the act (not from its notification) to declare it harmful to public interests, and after said declaration (and not from the expiration of that first year), a period of one year is granted to file the contentious-administrative action as a peremptory statute of limitations, except in cases of acts with absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta), in which case, the declaration of lesividad may be made as long as its effects persist, with the aforementioned year running from the definitive cessation of said effects. In that hypothesis, the eventual favorable judgment will order nullity only for the future inapplicability of the act, constituting an express exception to the regime of retroactivity of absolute nullities established by ordinal 171 of the General Law of Public Administration. The exception to that one-year temporal aspect is configured in the protection (tutela) of the public domain, in which case the lesividad action is not subject to any time limit due to the application of the general clause of imprescriptibility of that type of property as derived from canon 261 of the Civil Code. Now then, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">in tax matters</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">, the statute of limitations action (acción de caducidad), in addition to the aforementioned rules, is regulated in Article 165 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) (in force at that time). In this fiscal matter, in accordance with canon 41 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, the maximum period to file the proceeding shall be the same as that imposed by the legal system as the statute of limitations period for the respective substantive right, i.e., 3 or 5 years (numeral 51 of the Tax Code, in force at that time) for assessment powers (potestades determinativas) and 4 years for sanctioning matters (precept 71 ibidem, version in force at that time). Added to this, in this fiscal dynamic, since the natural head (jerarca natural) is barred from the power to review the conducts of the lower Tax Administrations (numeral 102 subsections b and d of Law No. 6227), a competence that has been granted by legal mandate to the Administrative Tax Court, as can be inferred from ordinal 156 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (in force at that time), this appeal phase constituting an improper monophasic hierarchy (non-hierarchical control), it is clear that the period to declare lesividad that runs against the Minister of the Treasury portfolio (competence that is based on the fact that they meet the condition of supreme highest head of both the reviewed body and the non-hierarchical comptroller, both part of the same structure of that Administration), </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">is computed from the moment in which that monophasic improper comptroller body notifies the a quo Administration of what was ordered by virtue of its appellate competence</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">. Prior to that moment, the natural head is materially and legally unable to be aware of an act that may be potentially harmful to the fiscal, economic, or public interests that they must protect, and therefore, unable to exercise their powers to declare that action harmful. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Of course, when the act deemed irregular derives from a lower administration, since it is not in the aforementioned scenario of improper monophasic hierarchy, such exceptionality is not applicable, and the period is computed from the adoption of the act</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">. In this case, from the analysis of the case file, it is concluded that the internal declaration of lesividad meets the indicated prerequisites. As has been established, resolution number TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012, which is requested to be declared partially null, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">was notified to the Large National Taxpayers Audit Directorate of the General Directorate of Taxation, on March 20, 2012</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(folios 372 to 432 of Volume V of the administrative file "Determinativo")</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">. </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">Likewise, in official letter DJMH-229-2013 of February 7, 2013, the Legal Directorate of the Ministry of Finance sent the recommendation for a partial declaration of lesividad against resolution number TFA-114-2012 of the Administrative Tax Court, based on the criterion issued by the General Directorate of Taxation, in official letter DGT-598-2012 of July 18, 2012 </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(folios 1 to 22 of Volume VI of the administrative file)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">. Based on said legal-technical criterion, by resolution number 139-2013</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">of February 22, 2013</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">, the Minister of Finance declared the aforementioned pronouncement number TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012, harmful to the fiscal and economic interests of the State,</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Tax Court in favor of Banco BCT </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(folios 23 to 34 of Volume VI of the administrative file)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">. As can be observed, that declaration of lesividad was issued within the year after the monophasic improper comptroller body notified the a quo Administration of what was ordered by virtue of its appellate competence. As of that time, i.e., March 20, 2012, the natural head was materially and legally able to be aware of an act that may be potentially harmful to the fiscal, economic, or public interests that they must protect, and therefore, able to exercise their powers to declare that formal conduct harmful </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">-only insofar as it recognized as deductible expenses those of a </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">financial </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#242424">nature associated </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">with liquidity reserves, and for revoking what was resolved by the a quo regarding the</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f">income obtained from transactions and investments made with foreign companies</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">-</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">, as it ultimately did upon issuing resolution </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">114-2012</span><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">of March 12, 2012</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">. Finally, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">the claim subject of this proceeding was filed on February 20, 2014, i.e., within the year following the administrative declaration of lesividad </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(folio 259 of the judicial file)</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> On the other hand, the claim is filed by the Attorney General's Office of the Republic against the banking entity that benefits from the partially challenged act, therefore, in terms of the standing (legitimante) scope, both active and passive, the referenced requirements are met. Finally, and contrary to what the representatives of Banco BCT maintain, the resolution whereby the Minister of Finance declared pronouncement number TFA-114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Tax Court harmful to the economic and fiscal interests of the State, is not contrary to the provisions of Article 136 of the General Law of Public Administration, as can be inferred from the following partial transcription of that act: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">“…it is inappropriate to recognize for THE TAXPAYER Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima, the income obtained through operations and investments abroad with capital forged in the national territory, as part of its activity, which is managed and developed within the national territory, such that the income generated by said investments are not capital located outside the national territory but rather constitute monetary sums generated through the intermediation activity that the same carries out in Costa Rica (</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#20272e">…) In the present matter, the taxpayer Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima is obligated to establish (sic) the reserve for the concept of minimum legal reserve requirement (encaje mínimo legal), but is not obligated to establish the liquidity reserve, as established by the Central Bank of Costa Rica (…) This being the case, having clearly established that the minimum legal reserve requirement and the liquidity reserve are not synonyms, this Office considers that with the interpretation of the Administrative Tax Court of considering both figures as the same, the expense would be duplicated for the same concept…” (folios 22 to 35 of Volume VI of the administrative file). </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#20272e">Consequently, the fact that the defendant entity does not agree with the basis used by the Minister of Finance to support their decision to partially declare resolution TFA 114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Tax Court harmful, does not imply that a violation of the provisions of numeral 136 of the General Law of Public Administration is configured. </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">This being the case, we proceed next to the examination of this action</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">.</span></p> <p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span> </span></p> <p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Vo.- REGARDING THE FINANCIAL EXPENSES FOR LIQUIDITY RESERVES RECOGNIZED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE TAX COURT FOR BANCO POPULAR Y DE DESARROLLO COMUNAL.</span></p> This Tribunal resolves as follows:

• a)The erroneous use of the term liquidity reserve (reserva de liquidez) as a synonym for minimum liquidity factor (factor mínimo de liquidez), as the basis for the decision adopted by the TFA. In the first instance and based on articles 62 and 117 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, as well as on the documents visible on folios 325 and 326 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file; 30 and 31 of volume VI of the administrative file and on the statements of expert witnesses Nombre115097 and Nombre3984 -see digital recording of the trial hearing held on 12-10-2019, located in the associated documents folder of the virtual file-, this collegiate body considers that both the liquidity reserve and the minimum legal reserve requirement correspond to an amount that must be "reserved" by financial intermediation institutions to guarantee their liquidity, and that the difference between the two lies in which type of institution must maintain one or the other, such that, technically, a Bank could not be obligated to maintain both the minimum legal reserve requirement and the liquidity reserve, at least not the one understood according to the provisions of article 117 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank. In the same vein, this Tribunal considers that maturity matching (calce de plazos) corresponds to a methodology for establishing a minimum liquidity factor for financial entities, which allows them to meet their obligations within the agreed-upon timeframes in the exercise of their ordinary activity, through liquid assets that generate both taxable and non-taxable income (either because they are not subject to income tax or because they are taxed with another tax) and that therefore, from a technical standpoint, bear no relation to the so-called liquidity reserve (digital recording of the statements of expert witnesses Nombre115097 and Nombre3984, given at the trial hearing on 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file). Based on the foregoing, it is considered that recital IX of resolution TFA-114-2012 issued by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Tribunal, titled "Liquidity Reserve," is contradictory to what was indicated by that same body in recital VIII of that same pronouncement, regarding the analysis it conducted on the matter of proportionality, and its application as established in articles 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its Regulations (see folios 401 to 430 of volume V of the "Determinative" administrative file). This is because, in recital VIII related to the "Application of the Proportionality Criterion and Consequent Rejection of Expenses Associated with Non-Taxable Income," the Tax Administrative Tribunal held -as relevant- that "...It must be emphasized that what was applied was appropriate, since all costs and expenses according to the financial statements were used indistinctly to produce taxable and non-taxable income subject to the profits tax, and therefore such expenses reported by the audited party cannot be applied only to taxable income, but rather to all income obtained in the fiscal periods under study, since it is evident that the total business-operational structure (technical, professional, and administrative) encompasses the planning, coordination, execution, and control of all business activities and functions, aimed at achieving taxable and non-taxable income…" (folio 411 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file; emphasis not in original); however, in recital IX called "Liquidity Reserves," the Tax Administrative Tribunal held that "...it must be admitted, and has been admitted, the deduction of a sum (different from that of the proportionality discussed in the previous recital), representative of those interests corresponding to payments for bank deposits coming from public investments, and which have simultaneously been arranged or placed in temporary investments for the purpose of forming liquidity reserves (…) In accordance with what has been set forth so far and in relation to the issue of the constitution of liquidity reserves and their generation of related financial expenses, and admitting as suitable and legal documentary evidence for the purpose of determining the admissible percentages to accept as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for generating taxable income, and once the calculations made by the audited party have been reviewed, it is appropriate to admit the percentages of 23.20%, 29.46%, 25.28%, 36.54%, 29.55%, 32.64%, and 35.87%, according to the information certified by the Super Intendencia General de Entidades Financieras…" (folios 425 to 429 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file). Without prejudice that this contradiction becomes evident again, when it is estimated in the final part of that same recital IX, that "…The arguments related to the present aspect regarding the constitution of liquidity reserves should not be applied to the taxpayer's claims in the sense that it be admitted equally in relation to other operating and administrative expenses incurred in the audited fiscal periods, because what is admitted under said concept, is admitted only and by way of exception, regarding the interests related to the constitution of such liquidity reserves, as has been extensively set forth in the present resolution, in addition to the fact that admitting such claims would violate the principle of proportionality applied in the proceedings and would admit, in contravention of what is provided by law for this type of taxpayer, the application of the source-based income principle in which it is indeed possible to deduct all expenses related to taxable income…" (folio 429 verso of volume VI of the "determinative" administrative file). Furthermore, said single-phase non-hierarchical comptroller of legality also incurs a technical inaccuracy, since it is evident that it uses the terms liquidity reserve and minimum legal reserve requirement as if they were the same concept, even holding that "…all the arguments of this Tribunal regarding the admissibility of those financial expenses related to the constitution of liquidity reserves are based on the same tax principles that the administration has used for the purposes of the minimum legal reserve requirement…" (folio 428 verso of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file), an assertion that would be acceptable only if the Tax Administrative Tribunal were referring to the liquidity reserve that must be maintained by those financial intermediation entities that are not obligated to maintain the immobilized funds of the minimum legal reserve requirement; but the truth is that in the specific case, it refers to maturity matching or the minimum liquidity factor, which is not the same as liquidity reserve. This collegiate body considers that a technical inaccuracy of this nature cannot be overlooked, even less so regarding the administrative body which, by the nature of the function it performs (single-phase non-hierarchical comptroller of legality in tax matters), is obligated to be technically and conceptually precise. Consequently, the discussion about whether or not it is appropriate to recognize the minimum liquidity factor or the maturity matching related to one- or three-month investments made by Banco BCT from an excess of liquidity as deductible expenses, and whether such recognition should be made through the proportionality established in articles 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its regulations, lacks interest in principle, since the Tax Administrative Tribunal does not refer to those points but rather to the liquidity reserve; without prejudice that said body also omitted to indicate in its resolution whether the minimum liquidity factor or maturity matching were or were not contemplated in the assumptions to which the Tax Administration had already applied proportionality (see similarly, judgments number 95-2009-V at 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019, and 103-2019-V at 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019, issued by Section Five of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda).
• b)On the scope of judgment 94-2013-V in the specific case. Without prejudice to the foregoing section and given the arguments raised by the representative of Banco BCT, this Tribunal deems it necessary to determine the scope of judgment 94-2013-V issued at 1:30 p.m. on September 26, 2013, by Section V of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, and based on the foregoing, to establish whether or not it is applicable in the specific case. In that sense, as stated by the legal representatives of Banco BCT, said pronouncement holds that "…there is a series of rules and principles governing financial intermediation activity, and therefore the examination of the issue requires a comprehensive treatment in accordance with the fulfillment of one of the objectives of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, which is the promotion 'of a stable, efficient, and competitive financial intermediation system.' (article 2 of Law 7558). In order to comply with said objective, the concerned Administration has established a series of regulations aimed at controlling the operation and oversight of financial entities and promoting favorable conditions to strengthen the liquidity and solvency of the financial system. Along these lines, such entities are subjected to supervision by the Superintendencia de Entidades Financieras, which has among its powers that of overseeing their actions, always guided by the principle that they must maintain a high level of solvency and a low level of risk, thereby strengthening the liquidity and stability of the intermediation system. Hence, a series of regulations are issued whose purpose is to ensure that financial entities adjust to certain efficiency parameters. One of those normative provisions is precisely Acuerdo SUGEF-24-00, approved by the Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero through article 8 of the minutes of session number 197-2000, held on December eleventh, two thousand, in which the Reglamento para Juzgar la Situación Económica-Financiera de las Entidades Fiscalizadas was approved. Said regulatory body defines six different types of risk: solvency risk, liquidity risk, interest rate variation risk, exchange rate risk, credit risk, and operational risk. When referring to liquidity risk, it indicates that it 'Originates when the financial entity does not possess the liquid resources necessary to meet its short-term demands or obligations to third parties.' From the content of this definition, as well as the objectives of the Central Bank of Costa Rica previously outlined, it is clearly inferred that companies or entities engaged in financial intermediation activity are obligated to maintain a minimum level of liquidity, since only that allows for a stable financial system, as otherwise the level of risk would increase. This is even more evident if one considers that one of the elements the Superintendencia takes into account when judging the economic-financial situation of the entities is precisely liquidity (…) It is therefore an obligation that also enables their operation, since otherwise, the entity would be exposed to a negative rating from the Superintendencia, and abnormal operation of the entity would occur. Thus, liquidity being an essential operating rule for this type of entity, it is clear to this Decision-Making Body that the costs involved in complying with this obligation constitute useful and necessary expenses to generate taxable income, and therefore translate into deductible expenses, under the terms provided in articles 1, 7, 8, and 14 of the Income Tax Law…" (emphasis not in original). Now, in that same judgment, it is indicated that "…Articles 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its Regulations provide for the treatment to be given in cases where taxpayers, when developing a lucrative activity, generate taxable and non-taxable income and expenses associated with both types of income. This is relevant if we recall that under the terms of articles 7 and 14 of Law No. 7092, taxable income is the taxpayer's net income, that is, 'the result of deducting from gross income the useful, necessary, and pertinent costs and expenses to produce the profit or benefit, and other disbursements expressly authorized by this law, duly supported by receipts and recorded in the accounting,' from which it follows that expenses linked to non-taxable income cannot be deducted, and that in the case of disbursements linked to taxable activities but also associated with non-taxable activities, the deduction must be made proportionally. The law allows the taxpayer to establish that proportion; however, when, as in this case, the system used by the latter is not reliable, it is the Administration's responsibility to apply the system established in the legal framework. In this sense, the final paragraph of article 7 of Law No. 7092 provides: 'Article 7.- (...) When the authorized costs, expenses, or disbursements are incurred to produce indistinctly taxable or exempt income, only the proportion corresponding to the taxable income shall be deducted.' And in turn, the first paragraph of article 11 of the Regulations establishes: 'Article 11.- Income is determined by deducting from gross income the useful, necessary, and pertinent costs and expenses permitted by law. When expenses, costs, and disbursements are incurred to produce indistinctly taxable and exempt income, only the proportion corresponding to taxable income must be deducted. When the taxpayer cannot duly justify a different proportion, they must deduct the sum resulting from applying the percentage obtained by relating taxable income to total income.' Consequently, this collegiate Body considers that the application of the proportionality system carried out is appropriate and in accordance with the provisions of the Law and its Regulations, where it is clearly established that in those cases where the taxpayer has disbursements linked to taxable and non-taxable income, and cannot adequately justify a proportion different from that established in the law, the formula provided for this purpose shall be applied…" (emphasis not in original). Consequently, while it is true that the Tax Administration could recognize the expenses related to compliance with the minimum liquidity factor in a proportion different from that established in the final part of article 11 of the Regulations to the Income Tax Law, it is also true that those expenses must be duly justified in the accounting records of the taxable person, in order to determine which are the non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income and which correspond to deductible expenses associated with taxable income, which is essential in those scenarios -such as the one at hand- where Banco BCT has produced indistinctly taxable or exempt income. The foregoing gains relevance in the specific case, because in this type of tax, it is the taxable person themselves who, through their return, determines the amount to be paid for said tax. However, within the framework of the assessment of a tax obligation such as the one under examination, the Tax Administration proceeds to verify the data in order to confirm the elements of the filed return against the data in the taxpayer's possession, and it is upon the latter that the burden of proof falls regarding those facts related to the reduction of the taxable base. Such is the meaning of the provisions established in articles 128 and 140 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, and article 19 of the Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria, Decreto Ejecutivo number 29264 of January twenty-first, 2001 (all in force at that time). Article 19 of the referenced regulation expressly stated that: "…The burden of proof falls on the Tax Administration regarding the constitutive facts of the tax obligation, while it falls on the taxpayer, responsible party, or declarant regarding facts that impede, modify, or extinguish the tax obligation. In this sense, it shall be the responsibility of the latter, as the case may be, to demonstrate the facts that constitute their costs, expenses, liabilities, tax credits, exemptions, non-taxability, deductions, and in general the tax benefits they claim exist in their favor." Thus, the validity of the self-assessment made by the taxpayer regarding non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income, and consequently, regarding deductible expenses associated with taxable income, is subject to verification, and it is up to the taxpayer, in this case Banco BCT, to prove the accuracy of the self-assessed amount, which must be demonstrated through the accounting system of said banking entity, the same which necessarily must conform to generally accepted accounting principles, under the terms established in precept 57 of the Regulations to the Income Tax Law, Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 18445-H, and should clearly reflect the amount of non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income. Without prejudice, of course, to the modifications to the Plan de Cuentas para Entidades Financieras published in La Gaceta number 77 of Wednesday, April 21, 2004, a document according to which account code number 819 is added, allowing the control and identification of non-deductible expenses associated with income not subject to Income Tax payment (folios 125 and 126 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file). In the specific case, it is established that Banco BCT, for the fiscal periods between 1999 and 2002, did not maintain an accounting system that would allow separating non-deductible expenses associated with non-taxable income from deductible expenses associated with taxable income, while in the years 2003, 2004, and 2005, it applied the so-called Nombre67376 methodology (see folios 71, 134, and 135 volume III of the administrative file "worksheets"; 01, 05, and 06 of volume V of the "determinative" administrative file; digital recording of the statement of expert witness Nombre115097 given at the trial hearing on 12-10-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file); points which, in any case, are accepted by the banking entity itself, both in a brief dated May 8, 2007, when stating: "…For the calculation of expenses associated with non-taxable income in the amended Income Tax filings corresponding to fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and for fiscal periods 2003, 2004, and 2005, the methodology agreed upon by the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense was used…"; and in a memorial dated December 5, 2006, when indicating: "…Year 2004 and Year 2005. The methodology agreed upon by the Asociación bancaria Costarricense in the year 2003 was used for the calculation of financial expenses, administrative expenses, and exchange rate differential expense (…) Year 2003. It was calculated with the excess liquidity determined through the balances of the one-month term matching, deducting from the reserve requirement account balances the balances of loans to state banks, adjusted for the volatility of the daily current account balances (…) Years 2002, 2001, 2000, and 1999. Expenses associated with non-taxable income were not calculated…" (folios 71, 134, and 135 of volume III of the administrative file "worksheets"; emphasis is original). In this manner, given the omission by Banco BCT of having a methodology in accordance with the parameters required by the legal framework, that is, one that has the support allowing the clear determination of all disbursements linked to non-taxable income, and therefore those linked to taxable income, during the fiscal periods from 1999 to 2005, the concerned Administration was compelled to apply the questioned system provided in articles 7 of the Income Tax Law and 11 of its Regulations, for those taxpayers that generate indistinctly income taxable or not with said tax. In other words, while the legal framework allows the taxpayer to establish that proportion -specifically regarding the expenses for complying with the minimum liquidity factor and maturity matching, which is what matters in the specific case-, when the system used by the taxpayer is not reliable -as in the specific case-, it is the Administration's responsibility to apply the system established in the legal framework.

In addition to the foregoing, from the “work papers” (hojas de trabajo) and the statement of charges (traslado de cargos), it is clear that the financial expenses for the minimum liquidity factor or the term matching (calces de plazos) related to investments of one or three months made by Banco BCT were recognized by the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) when applying the proportionality to the total financial expenses, after first subtracting, in each case, the amount for the minimum legal reserve requirement (encaje mínimo legal), an aspect that the Administrative Tax Tribunal (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo) failed to address in the contested resolution, and which ultimately caused it to make a double allocation of expenses for the same concept (pages 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 81, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 148, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 170, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 202, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 212 in the upper right margin of volume I of the administrative file "work papers" (hojas de trabajo); 5 to 8 of volume V of the administrative file "determinative" (determinativo); digital backup of the testimony of the expert witness Nombre3984 at the trial hearing of 10-12-2019, visible in the associated documents folder of the virtual file). For this reason, the arguments raised by Banco BCT, to the effect that the accounting it presented during the audit procedure (procedimiento de fiscalización) was not assessed by the Tax Administration, lack any basis. c) Regarding Official Letter number SUGEF 2207-201004134 of July 8, 2010, and certification SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883. Firstly, it should be clarified that contrary to what was indicated by the Administrative Tax Tribunal in recital (considerando) IX of resolution 114-2012, certification number SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 issued by SUGEF at 2:00 p.m. on January 25, 2012, is not the document by which said Superintendency answered the request for information made by the Administrative Tax Tribunal through interlocutory resolution number 084-2010 at 8:50 a.m. on April 28, 2010 (pages 325 to 327 of volume V of the administrative file “determinative” (determinativo)). The foregoing becomes relevant in this specific case, for the reasons set forth below: i) By interlocutory resolution INTER N° 084-2010 at 8:50 a.m. on April 28, 2010, the Administrative Tax Tribunal requested from SUGEF the following information related to Banco BCT: “…the amounts or quantities that the cited entity maintains in liquid assets or liquidity reserves, that allow it to meet its obligations within the agreed-upon terms in its ordinary activity of financial intermediation. The foregoing is required in relation to the fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. It is clarified that the previous request is regarding the referenced liquid assets and not the percentage corresponding to the legal reserve requirement (encaje legal) that is maintained as a mandatory reserve in the Banco Central de Costa Rica (…) Where relevant, a request is made, if possible, for a reference to both the amounts allocated for the constitution of such liquid assets, in relation to the public deposits (captaciones del público) by the financial entity, and the representative percentage between said deposits and the constitution of such liquid assets…” (pages 325 to 327 of volume V of the administrative file "determinative" (determinativo); the highlighting is not from the original); ii) In official letter SUGEF 2207-201004134 of July 8, 2010, the Directorate General of Technical Services of SUGEF informed the Investigating Judge of the Administrative Tax Tribunal that “…We refer to interlocutory resolution INTER N° 084-2010, received by this Superintendency on April 30, 2010, through which the following is requested regarding the entity “Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima” (…) In relation to the foregoing, we would like to point out that the requested information is not required by the Superintendency in the terms indicated in your official letter. The “Chart of Accounts for financial entities, groups and conglomerates” (Plan de cuentas para entidades, grupos y conglomerados financieros), establishes the accounting structure: classes, groups, accounts, subaccounts and analytical accounts, which financial intermediaries must use. According to the Chart of Accounts, entities must classify their accounts into the following classes: 110 Cash and Due from Banks (Disponibilidades), 120 Investments in Financial Instruments, 130 Loan Portfolio, 140 Accounts and Commissions Receivable, 150 Realizable Assets, 160 Equity Investments in Other Companies, 170 Premises, Furniture and Equipment, 180 Other Assets, 190 Investment Properties. With respect to class 110 "Cash and Due from Banks" (Disponibilidades), according to what the chart of accounts establishes, it "comprises assets that, due to their liquidity, have immediate availability. Therefore, cash, precious metals and remittances in transit, demand deposits and checking accounts at the Banco Central de Costa Rica, and at domestic and foreign financial entities, and those documents for immediate collection are included (…) On the other hand, regarding class 120 "Investments in Financial Instruments", the chart of accounts establishes in the concept for this account that it "represents a contract that simultaneously gives rise to a financial asset in one entity and a financial liability or an equity instrument in another company or entity, which may or may not be incorporated in a document, which by its own legal configuration and transfer regime can be subject to negotiation in a financial market or in a recognized and duly regulated stock exchange" (…) Having made the previous clarifications, I am now providing you with the balance of accounts 110, 120, 211, and 213, as of December 31 of the indicated years, just as they were reported to this Superintendency by the respective entity.

(pages 334 to 336 of volume V of the administrative file "determinative" (determinativo)); iii) That as a result of the request for information submitted by Banco BCT on November 4, 2011, SUGEF issued certificate number SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 at 2:00 p.m. on January 25, 2012, a document in which it indicates that the data “…correspond to the accounting and financial information submitted by Banco BCT S.A.

and Financiera Londres Ltda, to this Superintendency, and which is available in our databases for the periods between 1999 and 2002, both inclusive…” </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">and which refers to</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline"> “the balances of the requested accounting accounts, as well as the 3-month maturities in national currency and foreign currency” (folios 342 to 346 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">iv) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">That by a document dated February 22, 2012, the representative of Banco BCT presented before the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal, not only the copy of the record issued by SUGEF on January 25, 2012, referred to in the preceding section, but also, based on said information, proceeded to determine the liquidity factor percentages for each of the audited fiscal years, dividing the total of 3-month average maturities adjusted for volatility by the total average financial liability, obtaining the following result:</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span>&#xa0;</span></p>

<p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(folios 357 to 364 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">v)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the response to the information requirement made by the TFA on April 28, 2010, was not addressed by SUGEF through record number SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 of 2:00 p.m. on January 25, 2012, as the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal asserts in the challenged resolution </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(folio 429 of volume V of the “determinative” administrative file)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">; but rather through official letter</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline"> SUGEF 2207-201004134 of July 8, 2010,</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> in which the General Directorate of Technical Services of SUGEF stated –in what is of interest– that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">"In relation to the above, we hereby inform you that the requested information is not required by the Superintendency in the terms indicated in your official letter";</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">for which reason, the percentages that the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal recognized for the concept of “interest financial expenses” incurred for the raising of funds to constitute liquidity reserves by Banco BCT,</span><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">was not a percentage given by SUGEF, but rather corresponds to an operation carried out by Banco BCT itself</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">, and which </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#0a0a0a">does not prove to be an adequate reference for establishing the quantum of the expense associated with a reserve requirement or a reserve </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0a0a0a">–in the terms resolved by the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal in resolution 114-2012–</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#0a0a0a">, since these two figures correspond, as has been stated, to sums which the entity divests, separating them from others that, according to its regular course of business, it can use. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0a0a0a">d) Name14412. </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#0a0a0a">Based on the foregoing, this collegiate body considers that resolution number TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, with respect to considerando IX and the operative part related to that aspect, con</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#0b0b0b">tains defects generating absolute nullity both in its reasoning and content, insofar as the premises from which it started –reasoning– to resolve in the manner indicated above –content– were not in conformity with the legal system. This is because </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0b0b0b">it is</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline"> contradictory</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> with the very thesis that the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal expounded regarding the application of the proportionality criterion; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">imprecise in its terminology</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">, by referring to diverse legal figures indiscriminately, generating uncertainty for the Administration and the administered party; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">and omissive by recognizing</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> over a liquidity reserve that is not such, deductible expenses, overlooking that regarding the minimum legal reserve requirement, the respective percentage for each of the audited fiscal years had already been recognized, and on the other financial expenses, the proportionality of article 7 of the Income Tax Law and article 11 of its regulation had been applied, so that according to the terms resolved in the challenged formal conduct number TFA 114-2012, a double recognition of financial expenses was made. Consequently, the partial absolute nullity is declared, for being harmful to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal at 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">only insofar as it orders the acceptance as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income, the percentages of 23.20% for 1999, 29.46% for 2000, 25.28% for 2001, 36.54% for 2002, 29.55% for 2003, 32.64% for 2004, and 35.87% for 2005, for the concept of “interest financial expenses” for the raising of funds to constitute liquidity reserves in favor of Banco BCT, S.A.</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(see in a similar vein, judgments 95-2019-V of 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V of 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019; and 44-2019-IV of 8:27 a.m. on June 6, 2019, all of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">VIo.- REGARDING </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">THE INCOME OBTAINED FROM OPERATIONS AND INVESTMENTS CARRIED OUT WITH FOREIGN COMPANIES.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#0f0f0f"> F</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">irstly, what is the subject of discussion is</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">the territoriality of the income.</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">In this regard, article 1 of the Income Tax Law indicates that the tax applies to income, revenues, or benefits from a Costa Rican source, those derived from services rendered, goods located, or capital utilized in the national territory, obtained during the fiscal period in accordance with the provisions of the law. The State's representative is correct in that this is an aspect that has been addressed by judgments issued in this jurisdiction, as well as by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in the judgments indicated in her filing of the lawsuit, specifically in resolution 671-F-S1-2010 of nine hours ten minutes on May twenty, two thousand ten, when it states that to define territoriality, the circumstances in which the income originates must be evaluated. In that sense, said Chamber has considered that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">"...</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c"> according to what will be set forth, the direct defect alleged is not apparent; hence, the arguments outlined cannot be accepted. According to what the challenger indicated, canon 1 of the LIR was improperly applied or erroneously interpreted by the Tribunal; given that it was interpreted that “</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070b">overnight</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c">” operations have a territorial nature and therefore are subject to taxation. The norm in question, in what is of interest, states</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070b">“…</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03060a"> ARTICLE 1.- Tax covered by the law, taxable event, and taxable matter. A tax is established on the profits of companies and individuals engaged in for-profit activities. The taxable event of the tax on profits referred to in the preceding paragraph is the receipt of income in cash or in kind, continuous or occasional, from any Costa Rican source. This tax also levies continuous or eventual income from a Costa Rican source, received or accrued by individuals or legal entities domiciled in the country</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070b">…”</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03060a"> From this norm it can be concluded that Costa Rica has a territorial tax system and from which an objective element is imposed regarding the activities subject to said tax levy, namely, the principle of </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070b">territoriality</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03060a">. According to this principle, for the income to be taxed, it must </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070b">be generated</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03060a"> on national soil; the important thing is that the service rendered, the good located, or the capital utilized has its genesis in the country.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c"> Now, in order to determine if the profits must be taxed according to this cited element of territoriality; this decision-making body has repeatedly stated that it is necessary to take into consideration the place where that income originates, using for this the concept of Costa Rican source. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03060a">Income must be understood as the income or benefits from a Costa Rican source, those derived from services rendered, goods located, or capital utilized in the national territory.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c"> In this sense, see ruling no. 617-2010 of 9 hours 10 minutes on May 20, 2010, and no. 945 of 10 hours on December 7, 2005. (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Res: 000326-A-S1-2017, of ten hours fifty-five minutes on March twenty-three, two thousand seventeen. The highlighting does not correspond to the original). </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">For its part, in judgment number 94-2009 issued by Section VII of this Court at two o'clock in the afternoon on September thirty, two thousand nine, it</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">was considered that: “</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">The principle of territoriality is not limited to a merely spatial reference but encompasses all those cases in which the activity carried out by the taxpayer generates income directly linked to the economic structure or source from which it derives, that is, the Costa Rican territory and economic structure</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline">.” </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">Consequently, it is not a matter then of the mere circumstance that income produced abroad automatically triggers the exemption of the same, by application of the rule of extraterritoriality, but rather, on the contrary, the conditions surrounding the matter must be analyzed. Based on the foregoing, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#040609">this Court considers that, indeed, as determined by the Tax Administration in </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a">resolutions DT10R-058-08 of 12:00 p.m. on April 30, 2008; AU10R-076-08 of 12:00 p.m. on June 3, 2008, both issued by the Large Taxpayers Administration of the General Directorate of Taxation and TFA-114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#040609">, those incomes derived from</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#040609">&#xa0;</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#040609">operations carried out with capital from a Costa Rican source, as occurs in this case, must be understood as taxable, not abusively interpreting the criterion of </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c">territoriality</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#040609"> contemplated by both the Income Tax Law and its regulation, quite the contrary </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c">extracting</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#040609"> this criterion from the literal wording of the norm that speaks to us of income products from a Costa Rican source</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a">. Furthermore, when it is considered not proven that </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">the income declared as non-taxable and that were considered by the Tax Administration within the determinative process as taxable, were not a product of a Costa Rican source and of the Bank's regular course of business, within the national territory</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(considerando II, part a of this judgment). </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">B</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#040609">y reason of the foregoing, the criterion developed by the First Chamber of the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal in</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#0a0a0a"> considerando VI and in the operative part related to that aspect in </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a">resolution number 114-2012 of 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#040609"> must be declared harmful to the interests of the State insofar as it ordered:</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a"> “</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a">...</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a">The appealed resolution is revoked regarding the adjustments: (…) B) TAXABLE INCOME DECLARED AS NON-TAXABLE, (Interest income</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a"> obtained from operations and investments carried out with foreign companies)…”</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c">(see in a similar vein, judgments number 95-2019-V of 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">103-2019-V of 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019; 77-2019-VIII of 8:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, all of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#040609">.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">VIIo.- WITH RESPECT TO THE COGNIZANCE PROCEEDING RAISED BY BANCO BCT</span><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">AND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE SO-CALLED Name67376 METHODOLOGY PROMOTED BY THE COSTA RICAN BANKING ASSOCIATION. </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">In relation to the validity of the procedure followed by the Costa Rican Banking Association to achieve the approval of the methodology called Name67376 and the possibility that it binds Banco BCT, this collegiate body shares the criterion contained in judgment number 77-2019 of 8:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, issued by the Eighth Section of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court. In that sense, it is necessary to define, first, what is understood by interested party, it being the criterion of this Court that, starting from article 15 of the Code of Norms and Procedures, it would be the taxable person of the tax who would have to make the petition to bind both themselves and the Administration to its result, since the aforementioned norm defines who the subjects involved in the tax relationship are, which would be the active subject, the entity or body that is the creditor of the tax, and the passive subject, the person obligated to comply with the tax obligations, whether as a taxpayer or a responsible party. Now, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">without prejudice to the fact that in this case it is considered accredited that Banco BCT is a member of the Costa Rican Banking Association (ABC) </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(folio 170 of the judicial file)</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">,</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> it is also true, that even if Name67376 could derive a mediate interest in the matter, it is not a subject of the tax obligation in question, so it would not have standing for the petition raised before SUGEF and the DGT, in order for the application of the methodology for calculating the non-deductible financial expense, the non-deductible administrative expense, and the non-deductible exchange differential expense to be authorized. On the other hand, even assuming that Name67376 had standing and that Banco BCT is a member thereof, according to the text of article 102 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures itself, for a matter of such transcendence, such as the use of the methodology in question, to have </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">–in principle–</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> an effect that would bind the Administration and grant, in turn, a favorable and consolidated situation in favor of the taxpayer, it would be through the consultation of article 119 of the CNPT, as indicated by the same norm (102 of the CNPT). For these purposes, the Court agrees with what was indicated by the Comptroller General of the Republic (CGR) in report DFOE-IP-06-2005, regarding the need for the consultation, as well as with what was resolved by Section VI of this Court, in judgment 127-2013-VI, of two hours forty-five minutes in the afternoon on October twenty-one, two thousand thirteen, in which it is established: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">“…</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">IV.- Regarding the figure of the tax consultation.

The matter of the characteristics, legal nature, and scope of the tax consultation (consulta tributaria), from a generic standpoint, has already been submitted to the knowledge of this Court and was the object of analysis in a case similar to the present one, which gave rise to judgment number 102-2012-VI of 4:20 p.m. on June 4, 2012, issued by this same Section VI. Such position is therefore assumed as a baseline for the analysis of the present case. Regarding the tax consultation, the following should be noted. In the sphere of the legal-tax relationships generated between the Tax Administration (Fisco) and the passive subjects (or responsible parties), as a derivation of certainty and legal certainty, in order to provide greater clarity and precision to the scope and projection of the content of the formal and material duties of the obligated subjects, the legal system confers a series of powers upon the Tax Authority that seek precisely to delimit the scope of the rules regulating the indicated obligation relationships. In this line, part of these competencies are directed at issuing general rules that facilitate the correct application of tax rules. This is a generic competence contained in canon 99 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) and which enables, ex officio, the issuance of interpretative directives or institutional criteria that seek, it is insisted, to delimit the way in which a specific tax rule must be understood in general contexts. However, the same reasons indicated enable passive subjects to formally request from the Tax Administrations a criterion on the interpretation to be applied to a specific and concrete tax situation, in which they have some degree of reasonable doubt regarding the way to proceed in order to comply with their formal or material obligations. Article 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures regulates the minimum elements and procedural framework of this mechanism. In the present case, reference will be made to the version of that rule prior to the reform carried out by Law No. 9069, given that it was the version applicable on that consultation date (March 14, 2011), and in accordance with the provisions of article 9 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures. Note that Law No. 9069, which reformed, among many rules, the aforementioned canon 119, came into force upon its publication, which materialized in Supplement No. 143 to the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 188 of September 28, 2012. Ergo, the rules imposed by that new legislation cannot be applied to the present case, since the consultation predates that effective date. Having made that clarification, it is worth indicating that the previous version (applicable to the case) of that mandate stated: “Article 119.- Consultations. Whoever has a personal and direct interest may Consult the Tax Administration on the application of the law to a concrete and current factual situation. For this purpose, the consultant must set forth in a special writing, with clarity and precision, all the constituent elements of the situation that motivates the consultation and may likewise express their reasoned opinion. The note or writing formulating the consultation must be submitted with a faithful copy of its original, which, duly stamped and indicating the date of its submission, must be returned as proof to the interested party./ The consultation submitted before the expiration of the deadline for filing the sworn declaration (declaración jurada) or, as the case may be, within the term for payment of the tax, exempts the consultant from penalties for the excess resulting from the administrative resolution, if said excess is paid within thirty days following the date of notification of the respective resolution. To process the consultation, the Administration has forty-five days, and if, upon the expiration of said term, it does not issue a resolution, the consultant's interpretation must be deemed approved, if the consultant has set it forth. / Said approval is limited to the specific case consulted and does not affect taxable events (hechos generadores) that occur after the notification of the resolution that the Administration may issue in the future. / The consultation processed based on inaccurate data provided by the consultant is null and void.” For its part, the procedure or process of tax consultation is also regulated in section II of chapter VI of the General Regulation for Tax Management, Supervision, and Collection, Executive Decree No. 29264-H -RGGFRT-. In view of that rule (art. 119 CNPT), it is the criterion of this Court that the purpose of the tax consultation mechanism is to delimit the interpretation and application of a specific tax rule to a concrete case, according to the meaning given to it by the Tax Authority, in order to grant the passive subject a criterion regarding the matter consulted, which gives them security in their actions. Now, from that standpoint, what is resolved within the consultation process generates a criterion to which the passive subject must submit, insofar as it establishes the manner in which their tax situation must be understood in accordance with the rules governing it. It is a mechanism that allows the passive subject to request from the Administration a prior ruling regarding the understanding and/or scope of a tax rule applied to the specific case. In this sense, what was stated by Section II of this Court in ruling No. 225 of 10:00 a.m. on June 23, 2009, can be seen as a reference. However, it should be noted that the tax consultation constitutes a mechanism that allows passive subjects to have clarity and certainty in the acts they must adopt regarding the formal and material duties of tax obligations. The Costa Rican tax system is based on a scheme of self-determination (auto-determinación), self-declaration (auto-declaración), and self-assessment (autoliquidación), which means that it is the passive subject who, in the first instance, delimits the content and amount of their tax obligations, declares them, and pays them, and after that, the supervisory powers of the Tax Administrations emerge. Depending on the correct exercise of tax duties, determinations may be made that increase the taxable base, include income or activities not declared by the passive subject, and eventually, not only adjust the contributory duty but also exercise external sanctioning powers, whether due to the concurrence of administrative infractions or tax crimes. Thus, the consultation process allows the taxpayer to have a pronouncement from the Tax Administration that undoubtedly indicates the way in which, in the specific case consulted, they must act to proceed in accordance with their tax duties. Subsequently, acting contrary to this despite being instructed otherwise through that process evidences a greater degree of tax non-compliance, or, if they act in the terms indicated by the Administration, that compliance, being protected by the criterion of the consulted body or instance, will be in good faith and imbued with legitimate expectations (confianza legítima), for which reason it is unfeasible to later reproach them for eventual tax negligence, provided that the factual conditions of the declaration are the same as those submitted to consultation, because if they are variable or different, that criterion will not be applicable. This is because the public decision would address the consultation of specific situations, so that when weighing the factual-legal assumptions a, b, and c, decision X is issued. Subsequently, if the actual situation giving rise to the declaration is dissimilar to the one consulted (e.g., b, c, and d), decision X is no longer applicable, so in that case, that criterion would no longer protect the passive subject. The opposite would lead to an abuse of right and to extending, by way of conjecture, what was resolved regarding a specific consultation to conditioning assumptions that were not present at the time the conditioned effect, expressed via consultation, was issued. From this perspective, although it can be said that what is resolved in the consultation does not generate a perfected subjective right, since the conditions between the consultation and the declaration may vary, certainly, in the judgment of this collegiate body, it does generate an effect of certainty for (or against) the consultant, which later cannot be ignored, and which leads to the fact that if the declaration or determination is made in accordance with what was set forth in the consultation, it is not appropriate to require behaviors different from those guided by the Tax Administration itself. The contrary would lead to the nonsensical situation that, despite having an interpretative guideline formally issued by a competent authority regarding specific situations, the Administration could disregard it and impose not only increases in the tax quota on the taxpayer but also eventually apply interest, fines, and administrative sanctions, leading in that hypothesis to arbitrariness and inequity to the detriment of the administered party, who, in that line, adjusted their behavior to what the Tax Authority indicated to them at the time. It is insisted, this is always provided that the consultation-declaration conditions were the same. Disregarding what was resolved in a tax consultation process would empty the very purpose of that process and would lead to the illogical situation of having an administrative opinion that ultimately generates no certainty, since it can later be disregarded, even regarding the situations that were consulted. Hence, one of the requirements of the tax consultation is the current nature of the query and its relationship to a specific fiscal period and tax, which will be addressed below. V.- Now, this type of proceeding must not be confused with simple administrative petitions, regulated in precept 102 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures. Their requirements are diverse given the specialty and specificity of what is petitioned, just as the timeframes available to the Administration are different. It is therefore important to specify the requirements for tax consultations. Rule 119 of the CNPT establishes the following requirements: a) Existence of a personal and direct interest of the taxpayer in the face of a doubt; b) application to a concrete and current factual situation; c) formulation of the consultation in a clear and precise writing, in which the reasons for the situation originating the consultation are expressed, as well as the legal-interpretative criterion of the consultant regarding the specific situation set forth; and d) presentation of the original and a faithful copy, duly stamped and indicating the date of its submission. For its part, canon 124 of the RGGFRT establishes the following requirements: a) Pose the concrete and current factual situation, based on exact data; b) Set forth clearly and precisely all the constituent elements of the situation motivating the consultation; c) Indicate the name of the interested party or parties in the case; d) Indicate the affected tax or taxes, with their respective fiscal periods; e) Express the reasoned opinion of the consultant; f) The writing formulating the consultation must be submitted with a faithful copy of its original; the Tax Administration official receiving it must acknowledge receipt by stamping the office seal indicating the date of submission and their full name, on both the copy to be returned to the interested party and its original. Furthermore, the Administration has a period of 45 business days to resolve the consultation, which, if unnoticed, gives way to the application of the mechanism of tacit approval (silencio positivo), by virtue of which the interpretation given by the consultant is deemed approved, provided that such criterion was set forth. The foregoing is always provided that the data presented were truthful and with the warning that such aspect is limited to the specific case, without being able to affect subsequent events. However, it should be noted that the prior existence of pronouncements, interpretative directives, or similar matters from the Tax Administration that bear some degree of relationship to the object of the consultation does not, in all cases, prevent the possibility of formulating this type of proceeding, since doubts may well arise as to whether those provisions are fully applicable to the specific factual situation consulted. The power to attend to consultations of this nature emanates from the regulatory function of the Tax Administration, which, according to article 118 of the RGGFRT, has the purpose of ensuring the correct and uniform application of the tax rules regulating the taxes administered by the Dirección General de Tributación” (emphasis added). Based on the foregoing, this Court agrees with the criterion outlined by the state representation that official letter DGT-1659-03 of December 2, 2003 (folio 86 of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo"), is a simple opinion, and that the procedure to obtain -in principle- the legal consequences of legitimate expectations (confianza legítima), good faith, legal certainty, and the intangibility of one's own acts, should have followed the procedure established in article 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, which the Bank's representation was not unaware of, since due to the special nature of its commercial business, it had constant technical advice, and it is hardly credible that in a matter as sensitive as this, it did not seek advice from specialists. Therefore, both due to ABC's lack of standing, and the manner chosen to do so, there was no act capable of binding the Tax Administration to the Bank, regarding the use of the methodology, nor that authorized it for its use, both in the period to be declared and to rectify previous periods. At this point it is necessary to highlight that SUGEF itself expressly indicated that the methodology was not authorized for tax purposes but for accounting purposes -see folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; proof file of the "report DFOE-IP-06-2005"-, so regardless of whether it remains in force or not, it is not in force for those purposes; as well as that there is no act of the Tax Administration that expressly and directly authorized Banco BCT to use that methodology and to rectify the declarations for fiscal periods prior to the year 2003 in the terms of article 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures -in force at that date- (it does not emerge from folios 82 to 86 of volume V of the administrative file "determinativo"; see folder number 6 containing Report DFOE-IP-06-2005; proof file of the "report DFOE-IP-06-2005), so the audit (fiscalización) carried out and culminating in the contested determination (determinación) was appropriate not only based on the antecedent of the report by the Contraloría General de la República (CGR), but also due to the obligations imposed by the legal system for the benefit of adequate tax collection. In that sense, it is worth highlighting that the CGR indicated very serious objections regarding the ABC methodology, since it caused a higher deduction of deductible expenses to be applied, which led to a reduction in the tax, an aspect that could have been debated both in the determination procedure (procedimiento determinativo) and in this venue, but which was not done, despite having had the opportunity for its defense with the possibility of providing the respective evidence. Also, considering that the petition was not filed by the person with standing (legitimación), and that it was not done in the manner prescribed by the legal system, it is unnecessary to refer to the content of official letter DGT 1659-03, as to whether an authorization could be deduced from it, since as indicated, Banco BCT had the possibility and was also required to know that for the use of that methodology to be authorized, it had to resort to the consultation provided for in article 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, a situation that also undermines the principle of good faith, as well as the application of the principle of legitimate expectations (confianza legítima). This collegiate body adds that, furthermore, the administrative act authorizing a specific conduct must be express, a situation that could only be achieved through the consultation, so grammatical interpretations regarding official letter DGT 1659-03 from the Director General de Tributación are unacceptable. Nor does a subjective right declared in favor of Banco BCT exist, so the principles of intangibility of one's own acts and non-retroactivity cannot be invoked, nor the obligation to resort to the judicial review of unfavorable administrative acts (proceso de lesividad) or the procedure for evident and manifest nullity provided for in the Ley General de la Administración Pública, because it is once again reiterated that the Tax Administration did not specifically authorize the banking entity to use the methodology, nor can a subjective right be deduced from the action of an Association that is not a taxpayer, despite the fact that Banco BCT is an active member of said association. On the other hand, the fact that the Dirección General de Hacienda, through resolutions number DGH-042-2012 of 11:30 a.m. on December 12, 2012; DGH-029-2013 of 3:33 p.m. on August 23, 2013; DGH-030-2013 of 3:35 p.m. on August 23, 2013; and DGH-031-2013 of 3:43 p.m. on August 23, 2013, all issued by the Dirección General de Hacienda (images 123 to 149 of the judicial file), ordered the forgiveness (condonación) of interest in favor of Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, Banco BAC San José, Banco Scotiabank de Costa Rica, S.A., and Banca Promérica, S.A., generated by the ex officio determinations (determinaciones de oficio) made by the Subgerencia de Fiscalización of the Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes for the fiscal periods between 1992 and 2005, does not constitute, in the judgment of this Court, suitable evidence that the principle of legitimate expectations (confianza legítima) was violated to the detriment of Banco BCT. This is because, although it is true that in said resolutions, it is assumed that there exists “…an error by the Administration that in turn caused the taxpayer to be induced to commit errors when determining their obligations…”; it is also true that in the same formal documents, two reasons are adduced that prove the opposite, namely: 1) “…That the taxpayer, protected by the criterion given in the official letter, proceeded to rectify the income tax declarations for fiscal periods 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, and filed declarations for fiscal periods 2003, 2004, and 2005, using said methodology for such purposes…” (emphasis added). It bears recalling that SUGEF itself expressly indicated that the methodology was not authorized for tax purposes but for accounting purposes and that there is no act of the Tax Administration that expressly authorized Banco BCT for its use and for the rectification of declarations for fiscal periods prior to the year 2003 in the terms of article 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures -in force at that date-. 2) “…Subsequently, through supervisory actions by the Administration, differences are determined against the taxpayer that originated from the taxpayer making their declarations under the protection of the questioned official letter and the Administration determining that the correct action was to do so in accordance with the Income Tax Law (articles 7 of the Law and 11 of the Regulation). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated by the Tax Administration itself that there is a contradiction between the content of the indicated regulation and official letter 1659-03, and the higher-ranking regulation must prevail…” (emphasis added). In that sense, it is insisted -as considered supra- that Banco BCT was not in a position to claim it was unaware that, for the possible authorization of the use of the ABC methodology, it had to resort to the consultation provided for in article 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (in force at that time), a situation that undermines the principle of good faith. Lastly, and without prejudice to the foregoing, it is necessary to indicate that in accordance with the principle of legal reserve (reserva de ley) in tax matters (article 5, subsection a of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, in force at that time), only through formal and material law can the calculation bases of the tax be determined -among other aspects-, for which reason neither SUGEF nor the DGT could have validly authorized the use of the methodology for tax purposes, since that would have implied -in principle- a modification of the calculation base for the income tax provided for in article 7 of the law regulating that tax, in those cases of passive subjects that generate both taxable and non-taxable income with that tax -as occurs in the present case-. Consequently, the application of the provisions in articles 10 and 12 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional and 129 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica, regarding the scope of the powers granted therein to SUGEF, must be carried out in accordance with the principle of legal reserve in tax matters (see, in a similar sense, judgments 95-2019-V of 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V of 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019; 77-2019-VIII of 8:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, all from the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda).

**VIIIo.- REGARDING THE ALLEGED NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN DFOE-IP-06-2005 OF THE CONTRALORÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA.** This Court considers that because the Report DFOE-IP-06-2005 has enormous importance in this matter, it is necessary to reference it, indicating first, the observations made regarding the use of the ABC methodology: *"…In summary, it has been shown that the Methodology does not associate non-deductible expenses with significant sources of non-taxable income, but rather with a so-called 'excess liquidity' defined using elements of financial regulations, but not entirely adjusted to them. Since such 'excess liquidity' is determined excluding securities exceeding one month, and subsequently multiplied by a significantly reduced financial cost rate, the result is a systematic underestimation of non-deductible financial expenses and, by derivation, of non-deductible administrative and exchange rate differential expenses. In such a way that the non-deductible expenses resulting from the Methodology, in the best of cases, could not be understood as the only non-deductible ones, nor would it be admissible to consider all the remaining ones as deductible. Doing so, for what has already been analyzed and commented, would constitute an underestimation of non-deductible expenses, and consequently an overestimation of deductible expenses. The net income, in its case, would be being underestimated.* **2.4.3. RECTIFICATIONS BASED ON THE METHODOLOGY.** "Table 1 shows the amounts of net income, as determined by the public banks, unrectified and rectified as a result of the application of the Methodology, for the fiscal periods from 2000 to 2002. The tax losses (negative net incomes) of the banks increased considerably in such periods (with the exception of one bank). Thus, the total amount of tax losses of the aforementioned banks increased by approximately ¢30,000 million annually, on average. The negative tax result of such establishments responds to criteria specific to their tax returns, not to their economic reality, characterized by positive profits." Table 2 indicates the total amounts of deductible expenses, determined by the cited banks, before and after they made the respective rectifications, by virtue of the application of the Methodology in the cited periods. It was to be expected that, due to the content of the audits carried out by the DGT and the resolutions issued by the TFA, on this matter, that deductible expenses should be subject to limits, and the application of the Methodology would be consistent with that trend; however, in the study conducted, it was determined that in some cases the deductible expenses show an increase, and in others the decrease is slight, in accordance with what was discussed in section 2.4.2. The overall sum of expenses deducted by public banks, as observed, increased. (...) In accordance with what is set forth in this section 2.4, and within the framework of the powers of the Tax Administration, relating to the management, collection, tax audit, and access to tax information established in the legal system, and by virtue of the fact that the thesis adopted by the Administrative Tax Tribunal has been the application of the proportionality criterion established in the Income Tax Law and its Regulations (with the exception of the deduction of 25% of financial expenses attributable to non-taxable income), it is necessary for said Administration to delve deeper into this situation, and determine definitively, whether the application of the Methodology is consistent with the tax calculation base established in the Income Tax Law 7092. (...) "...after the approval of the methodology by the Directorate General, only one case has been audited, which belongs to the Public Sector. In the review carried out on said bank, one of our risk areas was the application of the methodology..// In the review of this case, we verified that the application of this methodology led the taxpayer to apply a higher deduction of deductible expenses. Furthermore, there is a study carried out by the auditors, where they issue their opinion on the methodology; however, it is considered that this study has not been endorsed by the Directorate General ... said study is going to be reviewed by the Regulatory and Audit Areas, to then proceed with its officialization.// I must not fail to state that this Administration has not made any comparison of the collection effect since the approval of the methodology, and to carry that out, it would be necessary to audit each of the Banks." **In accordance with the foregoing, it is also necessary that, pursuant to its powers and in accordance with the respective audit programs and procedures, the pertinent audit actions be carried out on banking entities as deemed appropriate.** (Emphasis not in original).

Now, this collegiate body considers that of equal importance is the analysis made by the CGR regarding the concurrence of competencies and the actions of both SUGEF and the DGT, in the context of the issuance of official communication DGT-1659-03 of December 2, 2003, in the following sense: "...Without prejudice to the foregoing (that which would be transcribed regarding the initiation of audit actions), the analysis of other aspects related to the procedures carried out before SUGEF and DGT will proceed next. **2.5 SOME LEGAL ASPECTS RELATED TO THE PROCEDURES CARRIED OUT BEFORE SUGEF AND THE DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE TRIBUTACIÓN.** In the study conducted, the following was determined: **a)** Without prejudice to the foregoing regarding the reservation of law in tax matters, with respect to the procedure carried out by SUGEF, the first paragraph of article 119 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank 7558, of November 3, 1995, defines the subjective or organic scope of the competence of that entity: 'For the purpose of ensuring the stability, solidity, and efficient functioning of the national financial system, the Superintendency shall exercise its supervision and audit activities over all entities that carry out financial intermediation, in strict adherence to legal and regulatory provisions, ensuring that they comply with the precepts applicable to them...// In relation to the own operations of the supervised entities and the recording of their transactions, the Superintendency shall be empowered to dictate the general rules necessary for the establishment of sound banking practices, all in safeguard of the interest of the community....( ) The general rules and guidelines dictated by the Superintendency shall be of mandatory observance for the supervised entities.' To the indicated powers of SUGEF are added normative and directive powers since it can dictate general rules or guidelines to the supervised entities. In this sense, article 129 of the same Law states: 'Acceptance of criteria of the Superintendency. The criteria established by the Superintendency, regarding the accounting record of the operations of the supervised entities, the preparation and presentation of their financial statements, their chart of accounts, the valuation of their financial assets, and the classification and rating of their assets, must be accepted for *tax* purposes.' On the other hand, in accordance with our legal system, the Tax Administration is the administrative body responsible for collecting and auditing taxes and dictating general rules for the correct application of tax laws. In this regard, article 99 of Law 4755, of April 29, 1971, Code of Tax Rules and Procedures states: 'Concept and powers. Tax Administration is understood as the administrative body in charge of collecting and auditing taxes, whether it is the Treasury or other public entities that are active subjects, in accordance with articles 11 and 14 of this Code...// Said body may dictate general rules for the purposes of the correct application of tax laws, within the limits set by the pertinent legal and regulatory provisions. In the case of the Tax Administration of the Ministry of Finance, when this Code grants a power or faculty to the Dirección General de Tributación, it shall be understood that it is also applicable to the Dirección General de Aduanas and the Dirección General de Hacienda, in their areas of competence...' (*) This article has been amended by Law No. 7900 of August 3, 1999. LG# 159 of August 17, 1999." For its part, in relation to the normative competence of the Tax Administration, indicated in the previous article, article 100 of the same Code establishes: "Article 100.- Review by the hierarchical superior. // The rules referred to in the preceding article may be modified or repealed by the hierarchical superior, by means of reasoned resolutions." **Regarding what was previously set forth in this document, as a result of the Association's request, CONASSIF, at the request of SUGEF, agreed to modify the chart of accounts for banking entities of the National Banking System, for the purposes of the accounting record of non-taxable income and non-deductible expenses.** However, regarding the official communications issued by SUGEF on this case, that superintendency stated to this Comptrollership that: **"Said official communications did not constitute an authorization for the recording or calculation of non-deductible expenses of the banks of the National Banking System for tax purposes. This Superintendency does not have legal powers that allow it to authorize, through the Asociación Bancaria Costarricense, all entities of the National Banking System on the application of the proposed methodology for the recording and calculation of non-deductible expenses, used in the calculation of income tax...// Neither this Superintendency nor the National Council for the Supervision of the Financial System has the competence to authorize methodologies and accounting records for tax purposes...// The notes SUGEF 4406-200309032, SUGEF-4338-200309032, and SUGEF 4796-200309032 present criteria that are not binding in response to a request from ABC...// To date, this Superintendency has not authorized the banks of the National Banking System to make adjustments based on the application of the methodology in question for the indicated periods, according to the request presented by ABC." b)** Notwithstanding the significance of the aforementioned request formulated regarding the Methodology, before the Dirección General de Tributación, concerning the studies that supported what was resolved by the DGT, it indicated that: "...3. internally, the Director General de Tributación appointed on that date was the person in charge of analyzing the proposal and giving his approval...//4. **Our records do not show that any technical or financial studies regarding that methodology were carried out internally by the Administration.** However, this Directorate General will proceed to carry out the necessary studies to determine if the method currently applied, based on the proposed methodology... should be maintained or if it should be modified. /...Our records do not show that prior or subsequent studies were carried out on the effects or the future fiscal impact of the application of the methodology. But... this Directorate General will proceed to carry out the necessary studies to determine if the currently applied method... should be maintained or if it should be canceled to return to the system according to which proportionality was applied/...Our records do not show that studies were carried out on the differences in the tax base and the eventual lower tax to pay. With the studies to be carried out, this situation will also be assessed...". Given the foregoing, in the opinion of this Comptrollership, **what was resolved by the Dirección General de Tributación at that time did not conform to the corresponding legal regulations, because the significance of the matter, and the change of criteria implied by such resolution, in the face of prior tax controversies, required due and express substantiation or reasoning,** in accordance with the provisions of article 136 of the General Law of Public Administration, which states: 'The following shall be reasoned with mention, at least succinct, of their foundations:...// c) Those that depart from the criterion followed in prior actions or from the opinion of advisory bodies' (...) **c)** In response to a query from this Comptrollership, the DGT communicated that the processing of the Association's request was indeed pertinent, by virtue of the provisions of article 102 of the CNPT" (The petitioner already based its request on this article), which states: "The Director General of the Tax Administration or the managers of the tax administrations and of large taxpayers to whom he delegates, totally or partially, are obliged to resolve any petition or appeal filed by interested parties within a period of two months, counted from the date of presentation or filing of one or the other. A petition should be understood as a claim about a real case, founded on reasons of legality...//" Notwithstanding the criterion expressed by the DGT on the competence of the Administration to process said request, in accordance with article 102 of the cited Code, the consultation provided for is reserved, from the standpoint of active legal standing, for those who have a personal and direct interest (taxpayers, successors, responsible parties, withholding and collection agents), regarding the application of tax law to a specific and current factual situation. Regarding this type of situation, the DGT has expressed itself in the following terms: "Both cited norms (referring to articles 102 and 119 of the CNPT) are clear and deal with claims or petitions from the taxpayer only, therefore, in accordance with this provision, the case consulted does not fit within the circumstances required by the regulations, because the person making the petition or consulting is not the interested subject, but a professional who provides his services to the legal entity, as noted in his writ: 'a client' and these are only admissible when formulated directly by whoever has a personal interest in having the law applied to a specific and current situation, because when responding to it, its pronouncement would have incidence and repercussion on persons other than those who have intervened." Likewise, that directorate, in official communication 0167, of February 7, 2001, clarifies, regarding the type of action and competence regulated by article 102 of the Code, the following: "Returning to the above, we can establish that when the first paragraph of article 102 speaks of a petition, it is referring to any claim formulated about a real case, and that is based on reasons of legality, which must be resolved within a period of two months counted from the filing of the same; otherwise, it will be deemed denied, and the corresponding appeals may be filed against it." For its part, on this same topic, the TFA has ruled in the following terms: "(...) The petitioner must possess a personal and direct interest concerning the application of the law to a specific and current factual situation. In view of the foregoing, it is considered that the so-called consultation by the appellant is not such, in the terms required by that legal provision, the Tax Administration, when responding to it, its pronouncement would have incidence and repercussion on persons other than those who have intervened in the formulation of the consultation, especially since there has been no authorization from the taxpayers to whom it is intended to apply… If the reasoning of the interested party and the interpretation of the mentioned texts were admitted, the eventual resolution issued by the Tax Administration would have general scope effects, which evidently was not what was wanted or desired by the legislator when requiring a personal and direct interest in a specific and current factual situation, since otherwise, as in the case under discussion, the pronouncement rendered would reach third parties, who have not been parties in these proceedings, distorting the Institution of the consultation (...)" Ruling No. 33, of 8:00 a.m. on June 22, 1993. First Chamber. Administrative Tax Tribunal. On the other hand, regarding the communication of what was resolved by the Directorate, it was indicated: "In the case of the consultation raised by the Association (petitioner), it was resolved directly by the Director General at that time, based on the powers granted to him by law. // The response to the request raised, in accordance with article 102 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, was notified at the place indicated by the Association for that purpose. The matter of communication to third parties by the applicant is not a matter within the competence of this Directorate General…". In the opinion of this Comptrollership, what is set forth in the previous paragraph would not be consistent with the provisions of article 101 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, which states: "Publicity of tax rules and jurisprudence. Without prejudice to the publicity of laws, regulations, and other provisions of a general nature issued by the Tax Administration in the exercise of its legal powers, the office responsible for applying taxes must immediately make known, through the Official Gazette and other advertising media appropriate to the circumstances, the resolutions or judgments rendered in particular cases that, in its judgment, offer general interest, omitting references that may harm particular interests or the guarantee of confidentiality of information established by article 112 of this Code." Finally, article 142, subsection 2 of the General Law of Public Administration establishes regarding the effectiveness of the administrative act: "2. For it to produce retroactive effect in favor of the administered, it shall be required that from the date set for the start of its effect, the reasons for its adoption exist, and that the retroaction does not harm rights or interests of third parties in good faith." d) The situations set forth in subsections a), b), and c) of this section 2.5 must be analyzed by the Ministry of Finance for the purpose of assessing their effects and adopting any actions that may eventually be appropriate. The actions carried out must be coordinated with the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras and carried out with the assistance of the Procuraduría General de la República, **when appropriate**, **and in accordance with their competences, and regarding said actions, due process must be observed with respect to the financial entities of the National Banking System, as pertinent.** (...) **4. DISPOSITIONS 4.1 TO THE MINISTER OF FINANCE. a)** Immediately undertake the pertinent actions so that it is determined, definitively, whether the Methodology for the calculation and recording of non-deductible expenses, associated with non-taxable income of the banking entities of the National Banking System, submitted for consideration to the DGT and SUGEF, is consistent with the tax calculation base established in the Income Tax Law 7092 and also, whether based on the situations indicated in relation to what was resolved by these latter entities, it is appropriate to nullify what was resolved regarding the Methodology, and issue any other resolution that, eventually, may be necessary, for the purpose of assessing its effects and adopting the appropriate actions. The actions carried out must be coordinated with the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras and carried out with the assistance of the Procuraduría General de la República when appropriate and in accordance with their competences, and regarding said actions, due process must be observed with respect to the financial entities of the National Banking System, as pertinent. **b) Carry out, within the framework of the powers of the Tax Administration and in accordance with the audit programs and procedures, and in light of what is set forth in this report, the audit actions concerning the banking entities of the National Banking System, as appropriate."** (Emphasis not in original).

From the foregoing partial transcription of Report number DFOE-IP-06-2005 and coupled with the fact that neither the Contraloría General de la República is a party to this process, nor has the plaintiff demonstrated that said audit body somehow accused the Tax Administration of non-compliance with what was ordered in its report, this tribunal considers that the statement of charges and the assessment resolutions issued against Banco BCT reflect compliance with the provisions of the report in question and not, as erroneously interpreted by the representation of Banco BCT. In that sense, it is reiterated that the provision of report DFOE-IP-06-2005 regarding the initiation of audit actions did not depend on institutional coordination to analyze the adherence of the methodology Nombre67376 to the legal system, since in accordance with the provisions of articles 12 and 29 of the Organic Law of the CGR, the report is clear in stating that the Minister of Finance must: "…**b) Carry out, within the framework of the powers of the Tax Administration and in accordance with the audit programs and procedures, and in light of what is set forth in this report, the audit actions concerning the banking entities of the National Banking System, as appropriate…**". Consequently, the argument is unfounded and must be declared as such *(see in a similar vein, judgments 95-2019-V of 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V of 1:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019; 77-2019-VIII of 8:00 a.m. on September 4, 2019, all from the Administrative and Civil Tax Court)*.

**IX.- REGARDING EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCES FROM OTHER INVESTMENTS AND OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT ABROAD.** In that sense, this Tribunal considers the following. The income tax in general terms has as its taxable event, as indicated by article 1 of the Income Tax Law *-in force at that time-*, the perception of Costa Rican-source income, in the following terms: *"The taxable event of the income tax referred to in the preceding paragraph is the perception of income in money or in kind, continuous or occasional, coming from any Costa Rican source. This tax also levies income, continuous or eventual, from a Costa Rican source, received or accrued by individuals or legal entities domiciled in the country; as well as any other income or benefit from a Costa Rican source not exempted by law, (...) For the purposes of the provisions of the previous paragraphs, income or benefits from a Costa Rican source shall be understood as those coming from services rendered, goods located, or capital utilized in the national territory, which are obtained during the fiscal period in accordance with the provisions of this law."* Similarly, articles 5 to 7 and 81 of the same law, stipulate the form for determining the tax base, which, in general terms, is the deduction from gross income, which includes all income, of those costs useful and necessary for the production of the profit or benefit, as well as any other permitted by law. For its part, article 8 of the Regulations to the Income Tax Law *-in force at that time-* established: *"Gross income. It is constituted by the total of income or benefits, in money or in kind, continuous or eventual, received or accrued during the tax period and coming from any Costa Rican source of the activities referred to in the fourth paragraph of article 1 of the law."* It is also constituted by exchange rate differences originating from assets in foreign currency, related to operations within the taxpayers’ ordinary course of business.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">.</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">Since financial intermediation is the principal activity of Banco BCT, which leads it to place the resources it receives from investors to obtain better returns, as well as to lend them to deficit agents in need of those resources, the required ordinariness is configured, which leads to the exchange rate differential arising from the internalization of resources being subject to the income tax (impuesto sobre las utilidades), which would lead to declaring the nullity of the TFA’s resolution, with respect to the recognition that was granted to the Bank for that item.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a"> At this point, it is necessary to highlight that the legal representatives of Banco BCT indicate that it is improper to tax the income obtained from exchange rate differentials on </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#0c0c0c">income obtained from operations and investments carried out with foreign companies</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c">-with the exceptions established by law-</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a"> given that numeral 1.3 of Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">number 28590-H</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a"> establishes that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c">\"...</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Pursuant to Article 10 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional and the Chart of Accounts for Financial Entities, valuation adjustments shall not be taken into account for determining the net profits of banks...\".</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> Without prejudice to the fact that, in accordance with the principle of tax legality (principio de legalidad tributaria) provided in Article 5, subsection a) of the Tax Code of Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) in force at that time, exemptions from a tax obligation are a matter reserved to law, and therefore, an exoneration cannot be established through a regulatory norm; it is also true that the application of the provisions in numerals 10 and 12 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional and 129 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">with respect to the scope of the powers granted there to SUGEF, must be carried out precisely in accordance with the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">In that sense, this Court shares the criterion contained in the assessment resolution (resolución determinativa) number </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a">DT10R-058-08 of 12:00 hours on April 30, 2008, issued by the Large Taxpayers Administration of the General Directorate of Taxation (Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes de la Dirección General del Tributación)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">, which regarding this point considered: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">\"... The transcribed legal norm does not have to do with the taxation of the exchange rate differences that are discussed in this litigation, but rather with the constitution of reserves related to exchange rate fluctuations and their deduction for purposes of determining the net profits of banks. Indeed, one thing is the taxation of the exchange rate differential for discounts and capital gains generated by adjustments for changes in the realizable value of investments, investments in dollars with withholding at source, exempt investments in dollars, among others, under the provisions of Articles 1, 5, and 81 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) and 8 of its regulations, and a completely different thing are the so-called reserves for exchange rate fluctuations, which regulated financial entities supervised by the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras are obligated to establish and which, according to the cited decree, shall not be taken into account to determine the net profits of banks. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">In other words, no sum is being rejected for the concept of reserves for exchange rate fluctuations, but rather what is being done is taxing income for the concept of exchange rate differential resulting from the development of its ordinary activity, namely financial intermediation</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">...\" (folios 194 to 195 of volume V of the administrative \"determinative\" file (expediente administrativo \"determinativo\"); the highlighting is not from the original). </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">Consequently, and for all the foregoing, the argument is improper and must be declared so </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(see in a similar sense, judgments 95-2019-V of 10:30 hours on November 18, 2019; 77-2019-VIII of 08:00 hours on September 4, 2019, all from the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Xo.- ON THE ALLEGED OBJECTIVE LIABILITY OF THE STATE FOR LAWFUL CONDUCT AND NORMAL FUNCTIONING. </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">In subsidiary claim number 3 of the lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, it requested</span><span> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">\"...</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">the liability for </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">lawful </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">conduct and normal functioning of the State be declared, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">it being </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">appropriate to request </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">that due to the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">exceptional </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">intensity of the injury and the small proportion of the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">affected parties, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">it be declared that there is </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">no basis </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">whatsoever for the imposition of interest and penalties </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">related to </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">the tax </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">adjustments </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">that are </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">made </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">in the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">challenged acts...\"</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the representatives of Banco BCT did not develop in their complaint brief </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">(folios 13 to 78 of the judicial file (expediente judicial)) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">the factual and legal arguments supporting the aforementioned claim, as indicated by the State Attorney appearing in this proceeding in her answer to the complaint brief </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">(folio 117 of the judicial file). </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">Given the indicated omission, this Court does not have the necessary elements to analyze and resolve whether or not the budgets established in Article 194 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) are met in the specific case, especially since the State's representative has also been unable to provide for her defense for that same circumstance, for which reason, this collegiate body rejects subsidiary claim number 3. In addition to the foregoing, it should be noted that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#191919">-as indicated by one of the legal representatives of Banco </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">BCT</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#191919"> in the clean-up stage of the oral and public trial hearing held on December 10, 2019 (see the digital backup of that proceeding contained in the associated documents folder of the virtual file)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">- the Tax Administration resolved to forgive (condonar) Banco BCT the interest on the amounts determined for the fiscal periods between the years 1992 to 2005 for the concept of income tax, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">a decision that motivated said banking entity to, on April 2, 2014, pay said sums under protest, as shown by the payment vouchers</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d"> visible on folios 226 to 231 of the judicial file. So much so, that it caused Banco BCT to expand its claims so that, in the event the lawsuit were granted, the State be ordered to make </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#191919">\"...</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a">restitution of the sums paid on April 2, 2014, plus their respective interest generated from the moment of payment until the date of their effective return </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">...\". </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">For all the foregoing, subsidiary claim number 3 regarding an alleged objective liability of the State for lawful conduct and normal functioning is rejected.-</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">XIo.- Nombre14412</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">. For all the reasons set forth in considerandos V, VI, VII, VIII,</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">&#xa0;</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> IX and X of this judgment, the following are declared improper: </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">a)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> Claim 1 of the lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, seeking to </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">declare the absolute nullity </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">of the notice of charges (traslado de cargos); assessment resolutions, issued in the income tax audit procedure for periods between 1999 and 2005, as well as resolution 114-2012 issued by the TFA. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">b)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> Claim 2, seeking subsidiarily, to declare the </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">partial nullity </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">of the notice of charges; assessment resolutions, issued in the income tax audit procedure for periods between 1999 and 2005, as well as resolution 114-2012 issued by the TFA, in everything that is detrimental to its represented party</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">c)</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">Claim 3, seeking </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">subsidiarily, if it is deemed there is no grounds for nullity, to declare the liability of the State for lawful conduct and abnormal functioning, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">it being </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">appropriate to request </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">that due to the </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">exceptional </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">intensity of the injury and the small proportion of the </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">affected parties, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">it be declared that there is </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">no basis </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">whatsoever for the imposition of interest and penalties </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">related to </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">the tax </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">adjustments that are </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">made </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#1d1d1d">in the </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#353535">challenged acts;</span><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">d</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717"> Likewise, and due to the manner in which it is resolved, claim 5 (restitution of sums paid under protest plus their interest) is also improper</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#101010"> since</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717"> its estimation was contingent upon the acceptance of the annulment claims indicated above. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#171717">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">XIIo.- ON THE SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> This collegiate body considers that, for all the reasons set forth in considerandos IV, V, VI, VII, VIII; IX and X of this judgment, the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho) filed by the State is accepted and, consequently, the lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, S.A. against the State is denied in all its aspects. For its part, and based on all the reasons set forth in considerandos IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X of this judgment, the defense of lack of right filed by Banco BCT, S.A. is rejected, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">and therefore, the lesivity lawsuit (demanda de lesividad) filed by the State against said banking entity is granted,</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">in the following terms, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">it being understood as denied in what is not expressly indicated:</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline"> 1) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">The partial absolute nullity is declared, as it is harmful to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo at 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012,</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline"> insofar as it orders the acceptance as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income, the percentages of 23.20% for 1999, 29.46% for 2000, 25.28% for 2001, 36.54% for 2002, 29.55% for 2003, 32.64% for 2004, and 35.87% for 2005, for the concept of "financial expenses interest" for the capture of resources to constitute liquidity reserves in favor of Banco BCT, S.A.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">2)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> The partial absolute nullity is declared, as it is harmful to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo at 11:00 hours on March 12, 2012,</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#040609">insofar as it ordered:</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a"> \"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a">...</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a">The appealed resolution is revoked with respect to the adjustments: (…) </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a">B) TAXABLE INCOME DECLARED AS NON-TAXABLE, (Interest income</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a"> obtained from operations and investments carried out with foreign companies)…”; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">3)</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">Consequently, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">the decision by the former Tax Administration of Large Taxpayers (Administración Tributaria de Grandes Contribuyentes) in assessment resolution number</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a">DT10R-058-08 of 12:00 hours on April 30, 2008, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">confirmed by </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">resolution number AU10R-076-08 also issued by the Large Taxpayers Administration, at 12:00 hours on June 3, 2008, is upheld; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">4)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717"> By reason of the foregoing, once this judgment becomes final, the Directorate of National Large Taxpayers of the General Directorate of Taxation (Dirección de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales de la Dirección General de Tributación) must proceed to liquidate the tax obligation of Banco BCT, S.A. related to the Income Tax for the fiscal periods between 1999 and 2005, inclusive, in accordance with the provisions of assessment resolution number DT10R-</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a">058-08 of 12:00 hours on April 30, 2008</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">in the terms that have been ordered in this judgment, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">of which the State's representatives must inform the Judges of the Judgment Execution Phase of this Court, within a period of six months from the date this ruling becomes final</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">. The foregoing, without prejudice to the forgiveness of interest in favor of Banco </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">BCT, S.A.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#171717"> ordered by the General Directorate of Finance (Dirección General de Hacienda)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">.-</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">XIIIo.- ON COSTS.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">&#xa0;</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> In accordance with numeral 193 of the Procedural Contentious Administrative Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), procedural and personal costs (costas) constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue of being so. Waiver of this sanction is only viable when, in the Court's judgment, there was sufficient cause to litigate or when the judgment is rendered based on evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In this case, this collegiate body </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">finds cause to apply the exceptions established by the applicable regulations and to break the postulate of sanctioning the losing party, since by virtue of the nature of the issues debated, it is considered that Banco BCT had sufficient cause to litigate. </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c">Regarding the lesivity proceeding, despite the claims raised therein being fully accepted, this collegiate body considers that by virtue of the change in criteria of the</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#04070b"> Tribunal Fiscal </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c"> Administrativo; the manner in which the facts aired here developed, and the existing jurisdictional precedents, the representation of Banco</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#05070a"> BCT</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#04070c"> had sufficient cause to litigate, which is why it is resolved without special sanctioning in costs. </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">Therefore, both parties must bear the costs generated by this proceeding </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(see in a similar sense, judgments 95-2019-V of 10:30 hours on November 18, 2019; 103-2019-V of 13:30 hours on December 10, 2019, both issued by Section V of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline\">POR TANTO.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">The defense of lack of right filed by the State is accepted</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> and consequently, the lawsuit filed by Banco BCT, S.A. against the State is denied in all its aspects.</span></p> For its part, the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho) filed by Banco BCT, S.A. is rejected, <span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">and therefore, the lesivity claim (demanda de lesividad) filed by the State against said banking entity is granted,</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">in the following terms, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">it being understood as denied with respect to anything not expressly stated:</span><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">1) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">The partial absolute nullity is declared, as being injurious to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Court (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo) at 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012,</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline"> insofar as it orders the acceptance as necessary, useful, and pertinent expenses for the generation of taxable income, of the percentages of 23.20% for 1999, 29.46% for 2000, 25.28% for 2001, 36.54% for 2002, 29.55% for 2003, 32.64% for 2004, and 35.87% for 2005, for "financial interest expenses" for the raising of resources to constitute liquidity reserves in favor of Banco BCT, S.A.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">2)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline"> The partial absolute nullity is declared, as being injurious to the public, fiscal, and economic interests of the State, of resolution number TFA-114 issued by the First Chamber of the Tax Administrative Court (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo) at 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 2012,</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#040609">insofar as it ordered:</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a"> \"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a">...</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a">The appealed resolution is revoked with respect to the adjustments: (…) </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a">B) TAXABLE INCOME DECLARED AS NON-TAXABLE, (Interest income</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#04070a"> obtained from operations and investments made with foreign companies)…”; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">3)</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">Consequently, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">the decision of the then Tax Administration of Large Taxpayers in the assessment resolution number</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a">DT10R-058-08 at 12:00 p.m. on April 30, 2008, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">confirmed by </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">resolution number AU10R-076-08 also issued by the Administration of Large Taxpayers, at 12:00 p.m. on June 3, 2008, is upheld; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">4)</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717"> By reason of the foregoing, once this judgment becomes final (firme), the Directorate of National Large Taxpayers of the Directorate General of Taxation must proceed to liquidate the tax obligation of Banco BCT, S.A. relating to the Income Tax in the fiscal periods from 1999 to 2005, inclusive, in accordance with the provisions of assessment resolution number DT10R-</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#03070a">058-08 at 12:00 p.m. on April 30, 2008</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">in the terms that have been ordered in this judgment, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">of which the State’s representatives must inform the Judges of the Judgment Execution Phase of this Court, within a period of six months from the date this ruling becomes final</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#171717">. The foregoing is without prejudice to the interest forgiveness (condonación de intereses) in favor of Banco </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#101010">BCT, S.A.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#171717"> ordered by the Directorate General of the Treasury</span><span style="text-decoration:underline">. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">5) </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">These matters are resolved without a special award of costs (condenatoria en costas).-</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Marianella Álvarez Molina</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Ileana Isabel Sánchez Navarro</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline"> </span><span style="width:17pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; display:inline-block; -aw-font-family:'Times New Roman'">&#xa0;&#xa0;</span><span style="width:36pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; display:inline-block; -aw-font-family:'Times New Roman'">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;</span><span style="width:36pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; display:inline-block; -aw-font-family:'Times New Roman'">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;</span><span style="width:36pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; display:inline-block; -aw-font-family:'Times New Roman'">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Juan Luis Giusti Soto</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">EXPEDIENTE: 13-001793-1027-CA </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(acumulado el Exp. 14-001246-1027-CA)</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">ASUNTO: PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">ACTORES: BANCO BCT, S.A.; EL ESTADO </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(Procuradora Paula Azofeifa Chavarría)</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">DEMANDADOS: EL ESTADO </span><span style="font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">(Procuradora Sandra Sánchez y Nombre5486)</span><span style="font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline"> Y EL BANCO BCT, S.A. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%; border-collapse:collapse"><tr><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-family:'Arial Unicode'; font-size:10pt">- Código Verificador -</span><br /><span style="font-family:'WASP 39 L'">*JTNNQHQRZVC61*</span><br /><span style="font-family:'Arial Unicode'; font-size:8pt">JTNNQHQRZVC61</span></p></td></tr></table><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center"><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%; border-collapse:collapse"><tr><td style="width:400pt; padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:'Arial Unicode'">Documento firmado por:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:'Arial Unicode'">MARIANELLA DEL CARMEN ALVAREZ MOLINA, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span><br /><span style="font-family:'Arial Unicode'">ILEANA ISABEL SANCHEZ NAVARRO, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span><br /><span style="font-family:'Arial Unicode'">JUAN LUIS GIUSTI SOTO, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span></p></td></tr></table><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p>

Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Central 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33 Correo Electrónico _______________________________________________________________________ ASUNTO: PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO ACTORES: BANCO BCT, S.A.; EL ESTADO (Procuradora Paula Azofeifa Chavarría) DEMANDADOS: EL ESTADO (Procuradora Sandra Sánchez y Nombre5486) Y EL BANCO BCT, S.A.

Nº 03-2020-V TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN QUINTA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. ANEXO A. Goicoechea, a las trece horas del catorce de enero del dos mil veinte.- Proceso de conocimiento interpuesto por el BANCO BCT, S.A., cédula jurídica CED90996, cuyos Apoderados Especiales Judiciales son Nombre115094 , cédula de identidad número CED90997, Nombre115095 , cédula de identidad CED90998 Nombre534 , cédula número CED90267 (folios 121 y 355 del expediente judicial; imágenes 1 a 8 del memorial recibido en audiencia de juicio del 10-12-2019, visible en la carpeta de escritos del expediente virtual); contra el ESTADO, cuyas representantes son las Procuradoras Sandra Sánchez Nombre5486, cédula de identidad CED1123 y Paula Azofeifa Chavarría, cédula número CED363, que a su vez, interpuso proceso de lesividad contra el Banco BCT, S.A. (folios 82 y 319 del expediente judicial).-

RESULTANDO:

1.- Las pretensiones del Banco BCT, S.A. –que se fijaron tanto en la audiencia preliminar celebrada el 22 de octubre del 2014, como en la audiencia de juicio oral y público realizada el 1º de diciembre del 2019-, son para que en sentencia se declare “...1. La nulidad absoluta de todo el procedimiento fiscalizador seguido en contra de mi Representado, de suerte tal que los actos administrativos cuestionados devengan absolutamente nulos. Cuestionamos puntualmente los siguientes actos administrativos: Traslado de Cargos Nº CED90999 de la Administración Tributaria de Grandes Contribuyentes; Resolución DT10R-058-08, de las doce horas del treinta de abril del dos mil ocho, emitida por la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes de la DGT; Resolución TFA Nº 114-2012, de las once horas del doce de marzo del dos mil doce, la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo. 2. Subsidiariamente, y de no prosperar la pretensión de nulidad sobre el procedimiento administrativo seguido en contra de mi Representado, solicito la declaratoria de nulidad parcial de los siguientes actos administrativos, en lo que contengan disposiciones ablatorias en contra de mi Representado: Resolución DT10R-058-08, de las doce horas del treinta de abril del dos mil ocho, emitida por la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes de la DGT; Resolución TFA Nº 114-2012, de las once horas del doce de marzo del dos mil doce, la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo. Por consecuencia, que se restablezca la situación jurídica de mi Representado, estimando que las declaraciones de los períodos auditados fueron realizadas de conformidad con el Ordenamiento Jurídico, y que los pagos realizados por concepto de Impuesto sobre la Renta fueron correctos y ajustados a Derecho, sin que exista fundamento alguno para que sean variados o alterados por la Administración. 3. Subsidiariamente, y de estimar el Despacho que no existe motivo de nulidad en ninguna de las actuaciones aquí cuestionadas, solicito que se declare la responsabilidad por conducta lícita y funcionamiento normal del Estado, siendo procedente solicitar que por la excepcional intensidad de la lesión y por la pequeña proporción de los afectados, se declare que no existe fundamento alguno para la imposición de intereses y multas relacionados con los ajustes tributarios que se practican en los actos cuestionados. 4. Desde la perspectiva de las pretensiones 1 y 2, solicito que al acogerse la demanda, se condene en costas al Estado, de conformidad con el artículo 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. 5. De conformidad con los artículos 46 inciso e), 60 inciso 3), 68 inciso 4), 90 inciso 2), 110, 145 inciso a) y concordantes del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo se solicita la devolución de los montos cancelados el día 2 de abril de 2014, más sus respectivos intereses generados desde el momento del pago, hasta la fecha de su efectiva devolución ..." (folios 76 y 77, 216 y 365; respaldo digital de las audiencias preliminar del 22-10-2014 y de juicio del 10-12-2019).

2.- La representante del Estado contestó negativamente la demanda, interpuso la excepción de Falta de Derecho; solicitó que se rechacen por improcedentes todas las pretensiones del actor; se declare sin lugar la demanda interpuesta contra el Estado y se condene al actor al pago de ambas costas, así como los intereses que dichas sumas generen desde la firmeza de la sentencia hasta su efectivo pago. Por último, indicó que renunciaba a la audiencia de conciliación (folios 84 a 118 del expediente judicial).

3.- Las pretensiones del Estado –que se fijaron en la audiencia preliminar celebrada el 24 de junio del 2015-, son para que en sentencia: “... 1. Que se declare la nulidad del fallo del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, Sala Primera, N.2. 114-2012, de las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo de 2012, por ser contrario a Derecho y lesivo a los intereses públicos y económicos del Estado, únicamente en cuanto a la revocatoria de los siguientes ajustes: A) Las rentas obtenidas por operaciones e inversiones efectuadas con empresas del exterior; B) Gastos financieros asociados a las "reservas de liquidez". 2. Que se declare que la resolución de la Dirección General de Tributación, Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes, N° DT10R-058-08, de las 12:00 horas del 30 de abril del 2008, en lo que es objeto de impugnación, se encuentra conforme a Derecho. 3. Que en caso de oposición a la presente demanda, son a cargo de la parte demandada las costas personales y procesales del litigio más los eventuales intereses que de ellos deriven…” (folios 286 y 357 vuelto del expediente judicial; y respaldo digital de la audiencia preliminar del 24-06-2015).

4.- El representante del Banco BCT, S.A. contestó negativamente la demanda; interpuso la excepción de falta de derecho; solicitó que se deniegue la demanda presentada por el Estado en todos sus extremos y se le condene al pago de ambas costas en este proceso (folios 292 a 316 del expediente judicial).

5.- La audiencia preliminar correspondiente al expediente 13-001793-1027-CA, se celebró a partir de las 13:29 horas del 22 de octubre del 2013, la cual, fue grabada en el sistema electrónico correspondiente y corre agregada al expediente en un legajo especial (folios 214 a 219 del expediente judicial).

6.- Que por resolución número 070-2014 dictada a las 15:06 horas del 26 de setiembre del 2014, la Sección Quinta del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, dispuso: “…Se ordena acumular el proceso tramitado bajo el expediente N°14-001246-1027-CA, al tramitado en el expediente N°13-001793-1027-CA. Se suspenden las actuaciones en éste último hasta tanto el primero alcance su misma etapa procesal, momento a partir del cual deberá procederse a la unión material de los expedientes. Deberá agregarse una copia de esta resolución al expediente N° 14-001246-1027-CA…” (folios 253 a 254 del expediente judicial).

7.- La audiencia preliminar que corresponde al expediente 14-001246-1027-CA, se celebró a las 13:35 horas del 24 de junio del 2015, la cual, fue grabada en el sistema electrónico correspondiente y corre agregada al expediente en un legajo especial (folios 357 a 358 del expediente judicial).

8.- Por resolución de las 08:15 horas del 28 de julio del 2015, la Sección V del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, dispuso: “…Procédase a la unión material del expediente 14-001246-1027-CA al l3-001793-1027-CA, tal y como había sido dispuesto en la resolución 070-2014-V de las quince horas seis minutos del veintiséis de setiembre del dos mil catorce. Se suspende la tramitación de este proceso, hasta que no sea resuelta la Acción de inconstitucionalidad que se tramita ante la Sala Constitucional bajo el expediente No 14-012592-0007-CO…” (folio 360 a 361 del expediente judicial).

9.- Que por auto de las 14:15 horas del 14 de febrero del 2018, se dispuso: “…Visto que la acción de inconstitucionalidad tramitada bajo expediente número 14-012592-0007-CO -que provocó la suspensión de trámites en este proceso de conocimiento-, fue resuelta por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, mediante sentencia número 2017-015495 de las 11:40 horas del 04 de octubre del 2017 y su parte dispositiva fue publicada en el Boletín Judicial número 201, 202 y 203 del 25, 26 y 27 de octubre, se resuelve: con base en la agenda de señalamientos a juicios de esta Sección y sin perjuicio que -de ser posible- se comunicará oportunamente a las partes una fecha para audiencia más cercana, se les convoca conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 99 y siguientes del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, al juicio oral y público a celebrarse en la SALA UNO de este Tribunal, a partir de las OCHO HORAS Y TREINTA MINUTOS DE LOS DÍAS 10, 13 y 18 DE DICIEMBRE DEL AÑO DOS MIL DIECINUEVE…” (imágenes 435 a 437 del auto de señalamiento a juicio, visible en la carpeta de documentos asociados del expediente virtual).

10.- Por resolución de las 08:21 horas del 02 de diciembre del 2019, se resolvió la solicitud planteada por el representante del Banco BCT, en el siguiente sentido: “…es menester indicar que conforme a lo dispuesto en el auto de señalamiento a juicio oral y público dictado a las 14:15 horas del 14 de febrero del 2018 (imágenes 435 a 437 del expediente virtual a la fecha de dictado de esta resolución), las partes y sus testigos fueron convocados para asistir los tres días a la audiencia. Ello por cuanto, si bien es cierto, se está frente a un proceso complejo -dado que se acumuló la demanda por lesividad que planteó la representante del Estado-, en el que hay 5 testigos por evacuar; también lo es, que el desenvolvimiento de la audiencia es un aspecto que no se puede predecir, dado que depende de múltiples factores relacionados con el comportamiento de las partes durante la diligencia; funcionamiento de los equipos; entre otros aspectos. Por ende, es necesario contar con la presencia de todos los testigos admitidos, a efecto de que estén disponibles para rendir su declaración en el que momento que el Tribunal así lo requiera, a menos que exista una causa justificada que les imposibilite presentarse desde el primer día para el que fueron convocados, lo que no se acredita en la especie. En todo caso, cabe recordar que el auto de señalamiento a juicio fue notificado al representante del Banco BCT desde el 14 de febrero del 2018, mientras que el recordatorio a juicio oral y público se le notificó el 22 de noviembre del 2019, por lo que, la logística necesaria para que los testigos de la parte actora pudieran atender el llamado del Tribunal desde el primer día fijado para la celebración de la audiencia de juicio, debió ser prevista por la entidad bancaria con la debida antelación del caso…” (imágenes 1 a 2 de la resolución del 02-12-2019, visible en la carpeta de documentos asociados del expediente virtual).

11.- La audiencia de juicio oral y público se celebró a partir de las 08:50 horas del 10 de diciembre del 2019, la cual, fue grabada en el sistema electrónico correspondiente y visible en la carpeta de documentos asociados del expediente virtual. Que durante esta audiencia, el Tribunal tuvo por desistida la declaración de los testigos Nombre71895 , Nombre115096 , y Nombre113731 ; con anuencia de ambas partes se prescindió de los alegatos de apertura y se abonó el plazo que se les iba a conceder al efecto para que lo utilizaran en fase de conclusiones; se evacuó la prueba testimonial restante admitida al Banco BCT y al Estado; y de seguido las personas representantes del Banco y del Estado rindieron sus conclusiones. Al finalizar, el Tribunal verificó los medios de notificación e indicó que la sentencia se dictaría de manera escrita, en el plazo de quince días hábiles previsto en el inciso 1) del artículo 111 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, por tratarse de un proceso de trámite complejo y en cuyo cómputo debe tomarse en consideración el cierre colectivo por vacaciones -que comprende los días 23, 24, 26, 27, 30 y 31 de diciembre del 2019, 2 y 3 de enero del 2020- aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en sesión número 86-19, artículo XLV (ver respaldo digital de la audiencia de juicio oral y público del 22-11-2019).- 12.- En los procedimientos ante este Tribunal no se han observado nulidades que deban ser subsanadas o que generen indefensión y la sentencia se dicta dentro del plazo establecido en el artículo 111 inciso 1) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, que vence el 14 de enero del 2020, dado que el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en sesión número 86-19, artículo XLV, aprobó el cierre colectivo por vacaciones, que comprende los días 23, 24, 26, 27, 30 y 31 de diciembre del 2019, 2 y 3 de enero del 2020.- Redacta la jueza Álvarez Molina, con el voto afirmativo de la jueza Sánchez Navarro y el juez Giusti Soto; y, C O N S I DE R A N D O:

Io.- HECHOS PROBADOS: Se tienen como debidamente acreditados los siguientes hechos que resultan relevantes para este proceso: 1) Que en memorial recibido el 15 de octubre del 2003, la Asociación Bancaria Costarricense presentó al Superintendente General de Entidades Financieras, formal solicitud de autorización para el cálculo y registro del gasto financiero no deducible, gasto administrativo no deducible y el gasto por diferencial cambiario no deducible de las instituciones financieras. “…Así las cosas solicitamos: A) Se autorice a las entidades financieras a realizar el cálculo del gasto financiero no deducible; gasto administrativo no deducible y el gasto por diferencial cambiario no deducible, de conformidad con la metodología que se detalla en el documento anexo y su registro en cuentas de orden. B) Autorización para realizar los ajustes correspondientes a los períodos 1999, 2000,2001 y 2002, de acuerdo con la metodología propuesta y el registro de dichos ajustes en cuentas de orden. C) Autorización para que se permita correr el ajuste de los períodos indicados, a las utilidades acumuladas…” (folios 68 y 69 del tomo V del expediente administrativo “determinativo”); 2) Mediante oficio SUGEF-4406-2003/09032 del 31 de octubre del 2003, la Superintendencia General de entidades financieras, indicó con relación a la solicitud y a la metodología de la Asociación Bancaria Costarricense: "…Debido a que las directrices contables dictadas por esta Superintendencia no permiten la asociación puntual y específica mencionada en el párrafo anterior, la implementación de un modelo viable y susceptible de verificación que permita determinar los gastos financieros, operativos y por diferencial cambiario asociados con los recursos que constituyen los excesos de liquidez que mantienen las entidades, vendría en buen medida, a solventar esa necesidad de información. Conforme con los procedimientos para obtener los cálculos arriba señalados y con base en los supuestos implícitos, consideramos que los métodos analizados en este documento constituyen una herramienta de aplicación viable, que utiliza variables derivadas de lo dispuesto en normas emitidas por está Superintendencia y que, por ende, son susceptibles de verificación. Asimismo, su naturaleza es congruente con la del objetivo último de dichos métodos; es decir, obtener un dato que permita asociar a los activos que conforman el exceso de liquidez que mantienen las entidades, los costos o gastos financieros, administrativos y por diferencial cambiario, y a los ingresos que ellos generan que, de manera estimada les pueden ser atribuibles " (folios 82 a 85 del tomo V del expediente administrativo “determinativo”; el resaltado no es del original); 3) En oficio identificado como ABC-264-2003 del 13 de noviembre de 2003, dirigido al Director General de Tributación, la Asociación Bancaria Costarricense, señala en síntesis "... 3. La Asociación desea emitir una recomendación a sus agremiados para que, con base en la metodología indicada, procedan los bancos a calcular y registrar los gastos financieros no deducibles, los gastos administrativos no deducibles y el gasto por diferencial cambiario no deducible. Lo anterior, los llevará también, necesariamente, a tener que rectificar las declaraciones de los períodos detallados. 4. Por la importancia del tema y de los actos que conlleva su implementación, deseamos solicitar a esta Dirección, que se pronuncie confirmando la procedencia de la metodología que ha validado la Sugef, como medio idóneo y correcto para calcular los gastos financieros no deducibles, los gastos administrativos no deducibles y el gasto por diferencial cambiario no deducible, a efecto de que los bancos procedan realizar los cálculos y registros correspondientes y así dar cumplimiento a lo que establece el artículo 7 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta y 11 de sus Reglamento. 5. La anterior solicitud la realizamos con base en el artículo 102 del Código de Procedimientos Tributarios…” (legajo de prueba del Informe DFOE-IP-06/2005; el resaltado no es del original); 4) Mediante el oficio SUGEF 4634-2003 de fecha 20 de noviembre del 2003, el Superintendente General de Entidades Financieras, le remitió al Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero, el proyecto de modificación al Plan de Cuentas para Entidades Financieras con el fin de que fuera enviado a consulta al sistema financiero, señalando que “…La implementación de esta modificación permitirá a los supervisados contar con una herramienta para el control y registro de los gastos no deducibles asociados con los ingresos no sujetos al pago del impuesto sobre la Renta…" (Legajo de Prueba del Informe DFOE-IP-06-2005); 5) Que el Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero, dispuso en el artículo 10 del Acta de la Sesión 406-2003 del 2 de diciembre de 2003, remitir en consulta a las entidades, grupos financieros y cámaras representadas del sector financiero, el proyecto de modificación del Plan de Cuentas para entidades financieras (folios 120 a 125 del tomo V del expediente administrativo “Determinativo”); 6) Que mediante oficio DGT-1659-003 del 2 de diciembre de 2003, el Director General de Tributación indicó a la Asociación Bancaria Costarricense que: "…Por este medio me permito dar respuesta a su oficio ABC-0264-2003. Hemos revisado la metodología propuesta en oficio de fecha 15 de octubre del 2003 y sus anexos y aprobada por la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras, en oficio SUGEF 4406-2003/09032, para calcular el gasto financiero no deducible y el gasto por diferencial cambiario no deducible. Este despacho desea informarle que considera razonable y correcta la metodología indicada, para efectos de calcular el gasto financiero no deducible, los gastos administrativos no deducibles y el gasto por diferencial cambiario no deducible de los bancos del sistema bancario nacional…" (folios 86 del tomo V del expediente administrativo “Determinativo”; el resaltado no es del original); 7) Que por medio del oficio SUGEF 4796-200309032, de fecha 02 de diciembre del 2003, dirigido a la Asociación Bancaria Costarricense, el Intendente indicó: “... le informamos que el 27 de noviembre recién pasado, esta Superintendencia planteó en el CONASSIF una propuesta de modificación al Plan de Cuentas para entidades financieras para que se proceda a la apertura de subcuentas y cuentas analíticas que permitan el registro e identificación de ingresos no gravables y gastos no deducibles, utilizado en el cálculo del impuesto sobre la renta. Por otra parte, con respecto a lo solicitado en el punto 3 de su oficio, tendiente a que se conceda la autorización para que los ajustes contables que se generen por la corrección de declaraciones del impuesto sobre la renta de períodos anteriores, se realicen contra las utilidades acumuladas, nos permitimos indicarle que en nuestro criterio este tipo de corrección califica en el plano contable como un error fundamental. Consecuentemente y conforme el Plan de Cuentas para Entidades Financieras vigente, estos ajustes deben afectar las utilidades acumuladas de ejercicios anteriores y específicamente, en el caso que nos ocupa la cuenta 352 " Pérdidas acumuladas de ejercicios anteriores…" (folio 87 del tomo V del expediente administrativo “Determinativo”; el resaltado no es del original); 8) Por oficio SUGEF 974-2004 del 15 de marzo del 2004, el Intendente General le indicó al CONASIF, que: "…Con motivo de su consulta, la Asociación Bancaria Costarricenses observó que la inclusión de una cuenta de orden que identifique los "Gastos por deterioro de inversiones en valores y estimación de incobrabilidad de la cartera de crédito no deducibles" no corresponde al propósito de la modificación, pues se trata de un gasto deducible claramente identificado en la cuenta del estado de resultados 420 " Gastos por deterioro de inversiones en valores y estimación de incobrabilidad de la cartera de crédito". Esta observación fue valorada y aceptada por la Superintendencia y constituye el único cambio en el proyecto respecto a la propuesta original. Por lo anterior, remitimos para su aprobación el proyecto de reformas al "Plan de cuentas para entidades financieras" debidamente modificado…" (legajo de prueba del Informe DFOE-IP-06/2005); 9) Mediante Oficio CNS 269-04 del 13 de abril del 2004, el Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero, informó al Superintendente General de Entidades Financieras, que: "…1.- Convino en modificar el Plan de Cuentas para Entidades Financieras para que se adicionen las subcuentas y cuentas analíticas, de acuerdo con el siguiente texto (...). 2.- Las modificaciones al Plan de Cuentas para Entidades Financieras consignadas en el numeral 1 anterior, rigen a partir de su publicación en el Diario Oficial "La Gaceta…"; el cual fue publicado en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta del 21 de abril del 2004 (folios 125 a 126 del tomo V del expediente administrativo “Determinativo”; legajo de prueba del Informe DFOE-IP-06/2005); 10) Que por oficio número DGT-2351-2004 del 08 de octubre del 2004, el Director General de Tributación dio respuesta a los oficios FOE-IP-261 del 02 de setiembre y FOE-IP-304 del 04 de octubre, ambos del 2004, remitidos por la Contraloría General de la República, oportunidad en la cual, indicó -en lo que interesa- que: “…aprobada la metodología por parte de la SUGEF, la misma se presentó en consulta a la Dirección General de Tributación, quien la aprobó, sobre la base de que había sido aprobada por la SUGEF que es el órgano técnico de la Administración Pública, competente para autorizar la metodología para determinar y contabilizar los gastos de los Bancos. La Dirección General de Tributación se pronunció positivamente, sobre la base también, de que la metodología cumple con los requerimientos del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo y de esta Dirección General de Tributación. Aprobada la metodología por la Dirección General de Tributación, los bancos procedieron a registrar sus gastos correctamente, para los períodos no sujetos a fiscalización e hicieron las modificaciones y rectificaciones en las declaraciones de impuestos. Asimismo, procedieron a hacer los pagos correspondientes a los períodos rectificados…” (folios 13 a 15 del expediente judicial; folios 71 y 134 del tomo III del expediente administrativo “Hojas de Trabajo”); 11) Que la Contraloría General de la República dirigió sendos oficios a la Dirección General de Tributación, a fin de recopilar la información necesaria para poder realizar el análisis correspondiente con relación a la metodología de la Asociación Bancaria Costarricense, oficios: 2101 del 23 de febrero, 2005 FOE-IP-0059, 2229 del 25 de febrero de 2005, FOE-IP-0065 (legajo de prueba del “Informe DFOE-IP-06/2005”); 12) Que la Dirección General de Tributación, atendió los requerimientos de la Contraloría mediante los oficios: GGC-067-2005 del 14 de marzo del 2005 y DGT-369-2005 del 04 de marzo del 2005 (legajo de prueba del “Informe DFOE-IP-06/2005”); 13) Mediante oficios 2886 del 11 de marzo del 2005 FOE-IP-0081, 3004 del 15 de marzo de 2005, FOE-IP-0082; 3625 del 01 de abril del 2005, FOE-IP-0095; 3974 del 12 de abril del 2004, FOE-IP-0098; la Contraloría requirió una serie de información a la SUGEF (legajo de prueba del “Informe DFOE-IP-06/2005”); 14) Mediante Oficio SUGEF 1216-200502862 del 16 de marzo del 2005, la SUGEF remite a la Contraloría General de la República el oficio SUGEF 4338-2003/09032 del 24 de octubre de 2003; en el SUGEF 1292-200502937 del 07 de abril del 2005, se refirió al oficio N°3004 del 15 de marzo de 2005; en el SUGEF 1508-2005 del 15 de abril del 2005 se refirió al oficio N°3974 del 12 de abril del 2005 (legajo de prueba del “Informe DFOE-IP-06/2005”); 15) Que el 16 de junio del 2005, la División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa, Área de Ingresos Públicos de la Contraloría General de la República, emitió el informe N°DFOE-IP-06/2005, denominado “Informe del Estudio Especial Realizado en la Dirección General de Tributación”, en el cual, emitió las siguientes disposiciones: “… 4.1. Al MInistro de Hacienda: a) Gestionar de inmediato las acciones pertinentes para que se determine, en definitiva, si la Metodología para el cálculo y registro de los gastos no deducibles, asociados a ingresos no gravables de las entidades bancarias del Sistema Bancario Nacional, sometida a conocimiento de la DGT y la SUGEF, es concordante con la base de cálculo del impuesto establecido en la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta 7092 y también, si a partir de las situaciones señaladas en relación con lo resuelto por estas últimas entidades, corresponde dejar sin efecto lo resuelto sobre la Metodología, y emitir cualquier otra resolución que, eventualmente resulte necesaria, con el propósito de que se dimensionen en sus efectos y se adopten las acciones que procedan. Las acciones que se realicen deberán coordinarse con la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras y efectuarse con el concurso de la Procuraduría General de la República cuando corresponda y conforme a sus competencias, y respecto de dichas acciones deberá observarse el debido proceso respecto de las entidades financieras del Sistema Bancario Nacional, en lo que resulte pertinente. b) Realizar, en el marco de las competencias de la Administración Tributaria y de conformidad con los programas y procedimientos de fiscalización, y a la luz de lo expuesto en este informe, las actuaciones de fiscalización a las entidades bancarias del Sistema Bancario Nacional, según corresponda. c) Dictar las medidas correspondientes para que, de inmediato, se realice una investigación administrativa en ese ministerio sobre los hechos comentados en este informe y cualquier otra situación relacionada con este caso. De ser procedente, deberán establecerse las eventuales responsabilidades y sanciones, de conformidad con los principios y procedimientos del debido proceso, y adoptarse todas las demás medidas legales que resulten pertinentes, incluyendo la remisión del presente caso al Ministerio Público si procede. d) Emitir las directrices necesarias para que en lo sucesivo, en los casos en que corresponda, la normativa, resoluciones o criterios que emita la Administración Tributaria, que de conformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico deban estar respaldados por los estudios jurídicos, económicos y de cualquier otra naturaleza, sean elaborados por parte de los órganos técnicos especializados de la Administración, y consten en los respectivos expedientes. e) Girar las instrucciones correspondientes para que se realice una revisión de la reglamentación (decretos, normativa, resoluciones o criterios) atinente a los ingresos no gravables y gastos no deducibles referidos en este informe, con el propósito de que se realicen los ajustes que eventualmente, correspondan, todo de conformidad con el marco jurídico tributario vigente. f) Comunicar a esta Contraloría General, en los próximos quince días hábiles, las medidas adoptadas para cumplir con las disposiciones contenidas en este informe. Ese despacho deberá disponer lo necesario para el cumplimiento inmediato de dichas disposiciones, así como para que se realice por parte de éste un seguimiento periódico que garantice un cumplimiento adecuado y oportuno de las mismas, así como para que las decisiones y resoluciones atinentes a cada disposición estén debidamente respaldadas con los criterios técnicos y jurídicos correspondientes, y ajustadas plenamente al ordenamiento jurídico. Se deberá mantener informado periódica y oportunamente a ese despacho y a esta Contraloría sobre lo actuado en relación con las anteriores disposiciones, hasta su pleno cumplimiento. 4.2. Al Superintedente General de Entidades Financieras. a) Adoptar, conforme con sus competencias, las acciones que, eventualmente, resulten pertinentes, con respecto a lo resuelto por esa superintendencia en relación con la Metodología, en coordinación con el Ministerio de Hacienda y la Procuraduría General de la República, cuando corresponda, con la correspondiente observancia del debido proceso, si procede. b) Dictar las medidas correspondientes para que de inmediato se realice una investigación administrativa en esa Superintendencia sobre los hechos comentados en este informe y cualquier otra situación relacionada con este caso. De ser procedente, deberán establecerse las, eventuales, responsabilidades y sanciones, de conformidad con los principios y procedimientos del debido proceso, y adoptarse todas las demás medidas legales que resulten pertinentes, incluyendo la remisión del presente caso al Ministerio Público, si procede. c) Disponer de inmediato las acciones correspondientes para que en lo sucesivo, la normativa, resoluciones o criterios que emita esa Superintendencia, de conformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico, sea coordinada con la Administración Tributaria, cuando corresponda. d) Comunicar a esta contraloría general, en los próximos quince días hábiles, las medidas adoptadas para cumplir con la disposición 4.2.a)…” (carpeta número 6 que contiene el Informe DFOE-IP-06-2005; el resaltado no es del original); 16) En memorial recibido el 05 de julio del 2005, la Asociación Bancaria Costarricense, procedió a sustentar ante la Contralora General de la República, el recurso de apelación en subsidio interpuesto contra Informe N°DFOE-IP-06/2005 (legajo de prueba del “Informe DFOE-IP-06/2005” y carpeta número 6 que contiene el Informe DFOE-IP-06-2005); 17) Que por Oficio 10763-CO-0581, resolución R-CO-R-87-2005, de las 08:00 horas del 02 de setiembre del 2005, la Contralora General de la República dispuso: "…Con fundamento en las consideraciones expuestas, se rechaza por falta de legitimación el recurso de apelación y nulidad concomitante interpuesto por el señor Nombre3850 , en calidad de presidente y apoderado de la Asociación Bancaria Costarricense, dirigido en contra del Informe DFOE-IP-06/2005, emitido por la División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa, Área de Ingresos Públicos de este órgano contralor. Se da por agotada la vía administrativa” (legajo de prueba del “Informe DFOE-IP-06/2005” y carpeta número 6 que contiene el Informe DFOE-IP-06-2005); 18) Que por Directriz Interpretativa número DGT-16-05 del 19 de diciembre del 2005, la Directora General a.i. de Tributación dispuso -en lo que interesa-: “…Esta directriz deja sin efecto el criterio vertido en el oficio de la Dirección General de Tributación No. DGT-1659-03 del 2 de diciembre del· 2003, así como cualquier otro criterio que se le oponga total o parcialmente o que se haya interpretado en forma diferente a lo que a continuación se expone…” (folios 88 a 91 del tomo V del expediente administrativo “determinativo”); 19) Que por traslado de cargos número 275200016552 emitido el 13 de noviembre del 2007 por la Administración Tributaria de Grandes Contribuyentes de la DGT, se indicó que de conformidad con la determinación de oficio efectuada, la obligación tributaria del Banco BCT es la siguiente:

Período Diferencia Base Imponible Diferencia Impuesto Determinado 1999 325.135.421,00 97.540.63,00 2000 334.681.577,00 99.923.621,00 2001 462.686.011,00 108.779.953,00 2002 813.074.128,00 174.664.230,00 2003 659.246.722,00 233.139.234,00 2004 298.584.297,00 89.575.289,00 2005 345.977.498,00 103.793.249,00 Ello por cuanto, el "…Banco BCT S.A., presentó declaraciones rectificativas del Impuesto sobre la Renta (Impuesto a las Utilidades) de los períodos fiscales 1999, 2000,2001 y 2002 (…), y las declaraciones de los períodos del Impuesto sobre la Renta (Impuesto a las Utilidades) de los períodos fiscales 2003, 2004 y 2005 (…) utilizando una metodología diferente, a la proporcionalidad establecida en el artículo 7 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta y 11 de su Reglamento, para efectos de calcular gastos no deducibles asociados a ingresos no gravables; dicha metodología no es aceptada por la Administración Tributaria, según se indica a continuación: (...) De acuerdo con reiterados fallos del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo entre los cuales está el N° 201-2005 de fecha 12 de mayo del 2005 entre otros, estableció que la proporción señalada en el artículo 7 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta y artículo 11 de su Reglamento, es un método correcto para asignar gastos a los ingresos no gravables y lo único que sería cuestionable es que las variables que afectan dicha proporción no hayan sido determinadas correctamente. Mediante informe N° DFOE-IP-06/2005 del 16 de junio del 2005 la CONTRALORÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA, cuestionó la metodología utilizada por las entidades bancarias, por cuanto la misma no era concordante con lo establecido en la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta N° 7092, del 21 de abril de 1988. Por cuanto dicha metodología no asocia gastos no deducibles a fuentes de ingresos no gravables, sino a un llamado exceso de liquidez, que se determina con exclusión de títulos valores a más de un mes y se multiplica por una tasa de costo financiero sensiblemente reducida dando como resultado una subestimación de gastos no deducibles y por consiguiente una sobreestimación de los gastos deducibles, lo que subestima a su vez la renta neta. Mediante Directriz N° 16-05 de fecha 19 de diciembre del 2005 la Dirección General de Tributación, dejó sin efecto el Oficio N° DGT-1659-03 del 02 de diciembre del 2003…" (folios 1 a 9 del tomo V del expediente administrativo “determinativo”); 20) Que por resolución determinativa número DT10R-058-08 dictada a las 12:00 horas del 30 de abril del 2008 por la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes de la DGT, , se dispuso: “… Se declara sin lugar tanto los escritos de impugnación, así como el incidente de nulidad, las excepciones y el recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio para ante el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo incoados concomitantemente por el señor GERARDO ULLOA CASTRO, en su condición de Gerente Generalísimo sin límite de suma del BANCO BCT SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, contra el traslado de cargos y observaciones N° Identificacion614 correspondiente el primero al Impuesto sobre la Renta de los Períodos Fiscales 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 y 2005 (…). Por consiguiente, se determina un aumento con respecto a lo declarado por las sumas de ¢97.540.626,00 (noventa y siete millones quinientos cuarenta mil seiscientos veintiséis colones sin céntimos), ¢99.923.021,00, (noventa y nueve millones novecientos veintitrés mil seiscientos veintiún colones sin céntimos), ¢108.779.953,00 (ciento ocho millones setecientos setenta y nueve mil novecientos cincuenta y tres colones sin céntimos), ¢174.664.230,00 (ciento setenta y cuatro millones seiscientos sesenta y cuatro mil doscientos treinta colones sin céntimos), ¢233.139.234,00 (doscientos treinta y tres millones ciento treinta y nueve mil doscientos treinta y cuatro colones sin céntimos), ¢89.575.289,00 (ochenta y nueve millones quinientos setenta y cinco mil doscientos ochenta y nueve colones sin céntimos), y ¢ 103.793.249,00 (ciento tres millones setecientos noventa y tres mil doscientos cuarenta y nueve colones sin céntimos), (…) para un total de ¢909.416.202,00 ( novecientos siete millones cuatrocientos dieciséis mil doscientos dos colones, sin céntimos)…” (folios 142 a 225, 11 a 52 del tomo V del expediente administrativo “determinativo”); 21) Que por resolución AU10R-076-08 también dictada por la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes, a las 12:00 horas del 03 de junio del 2008, se dispuso: “…Se declara sin lugar tanto el recurso de revocatoria, así como el incidente de nulidad incoado por el señor GERARDO ULLOA CASTRO, en su condición de Gerente Generalísimo sin límite de suma del BANCO BCT SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, contra lo resuelto por esta Dependencia en la resolución N° DT10R-058-08 de las doce horas del treinta de abril del dos mil ocho. Se admite el recurso de apelación para ante el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo…” (folios 237 a 263, 226 a 235 del tomo V del expediente administrativo “determinativo”); 22) Por resolución interlocutoria INTER N° 084-2010 de las 08:50 horas del 28 de abril del 2010, el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo solicitó a la SUGEF la siguiente información relacionada con el Banco BCT: “…los montos o cantidades que la citada entidad mantiene en activos líquidos o reservas de liquidez, que le permitan cumplir con sus obligaciones en los plazos pactados en su actividad ordinaria de intermediación financiera. Lo anterior se requiere en relación a los períodos fiscales 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 y 2005. Se aclara que la anterior petición es en cuanto a los activos líquidos de referencia y no al porcentaje correspondiente al encaje legal que como reserva obligatoria se mantiene en el Banco Central de Costa Rica (…) Se solicita en lo pertinente, en caso de que ello sea posible, la referencia tanto de las cantidades dispuestas para la constitución de tales activos líquidos, en relación con las captaciones del público por parte de la entidad financiera, como el porcentaje representativo entre dichas captaciones y la constitución de tales activos líquidos…” (folios 325 a 327 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"; el resaltado no es del original); 23) En el oficio SUGEF 2207-201004134 del 08 de julio del 2010, la Dirección General de Servicios Técnicos de la SUGEF, indicó a la Jueza Instructora del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo que “…Nos referimos a la resolución interlocutoria INTER N° 084-2010, recibida en esta Superintendencia el 30 de abril del 2010, mediante la cual se solicita en relación con la entidad “Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima” lo siguiente: (…) En relación con lo anterior, nos permitimos indicarle que la información solicitada no es requerida por la Superintendencia en los términos indicados en su oficio. El "Plan de cuentas para entidades, grupos y conglomerados financieros, establece la estructura contable: clases, grupos, cuentas, subcuentas y cuentas analíticas, que deben utilizar los intermediarios financieros. De acuerdo al Plan de cuentas, las entidades deben clasificar sus cuentas en las siguientes clases: 110 disponibilidades, 120 Inversiones en instrumentos financieros, 130 Cartera de créditos, 140 Cuentas y comisiones por cobrar, 150 Bienes realizables, 160 Participación en el capital de otras empresas, 170 Inmuebles mobiliario y equipo, 180 Otros activos, 190 Inversiones en propiedades. En lo que respecta a la clase 110 "Disponibilidades", de acuerdo con lo que establece el plan de cuentas, el mismo "comprende los activos que por su liquidez cuentan con disponibilidad inmediata. Se incluyen por lo tanto, el dinero efectivo, los metales precisos y las remesas en tránsito, los depósitos a la vista y cuentas corrientes en el Banco Central de Costa Rica, entidades financieras del país y del exterior y aquellos documentos de cobro inmediato (...) Por otra parte, en cuanto a la clase 120 "Inversiones en Instrumentos financieros", el plan de cuentas establece en el concepto de esta cuenta que "representa un contrato que simultáneamente da lugar a un activo financiero en una entidad y a un pasivo financiero o un instrumento de capital en otra empresa o entidad, los cuales pueden estar incorporados o no en un documento, que por su configuración jurídica propia y régimen de transmisión puedan ser objeto de negociación en un mercado financiero o en una bolsa de valores reconocida y debidamente regulada" (…) Una vez hechas las aclaraciones anteriores, seguidamente me permito remitirle el saldo de las cuentas 110, 120, 211, y 213, al 31 de diciembre de los años indicados, tal y como fueron reportadas a esta Superintendencia por la respectiva entidad.

Período Disponibilidades (110) Inver.Inst. Finac (120) Cap a la vista (211) Cap a plazo (213) Diciembre-1999 1.236.914.835 2.963.804.478 688.952.534 250.397.008 Diciembre-2000 1.926.335.170 2.158.091.001 2.301.013.310 8.291.497.126 Diciembre-2001 2.299.743.780 3.163.086.070 2.653.440.877 6.930.332.146 Diciembre-2002 2.659.824.712 3.883.578.378 2.588.985.751 5.691.594.786 Diciembre-2003 3.524.264.578 1.380.693.127 2.992.906.972 4.078.332.123 Diciembre-2004 2.838.397.433 2.408.112.170 5.124.465.220 5.585.793.826 Diciembre-2005 6.847.815.316 1.758.826.242 6.557.011.293 7.692.571.349 (folios 334 a 336 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"); 24) Que a consecuencia de la solicitud de información planteada por el Banco BCT el 04 de noviembre del 2011, la SUGEF emitió la constancia número SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 de las 14:00 horas del 25 de enero del 2012, documento en el cual indica que los datos “…corresponden a la información contable y financiera remitida por Banco BCT S.A. y Financiera Londres Ltda, a esta Superintendencia, y que se encuentra disponible en nuestras bases de datos para los períodos comprendidos entre 1999 y 2002, ambos inclusive…” y que se refiere a “los saldos de las cuentas contables solicitadas, así como los vencimientos a 3 meses en moneda nacional y moneda extranjera” (folios 342 a 346 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"); 25) Que por escrito fechado 22 de febrero del 2012, el representante del Banco BCT presentó ante el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, no sólo la copia de la constancia emitida por la SUGEF el 25 de enero del 2012 a que se hizo referencia en el apartado precedente, sino que además, con base en dicha información procedió a determinar los porcentajes por factor de liquidez para cada uno de los años fiscales auditados, dividiendo el total de vencimientos a 3 meses promedio ajustados por volatibilidad entre el promedio total del pasivo financiero, obteniendo el siguiente resultado:

Período Fiscal Factor de Liquidez 1999 23.20% 2000 29.46% 2001 25.28% 2002 36.54% 2003 29.55% 2004 32.64% 2005 35.87% (folios 357 a 364 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"); 26) Que por resolución número TFA-114-2012 dictada por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, a las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo del 2012, se dispuso: “…Se declara sin lugar la nulidad interpuesta. Se revoca la resolución recurrida en cuanto a los ajustes: (…) B) INGRESOS GRAVABLES DECLARADOS COMO NO GRAVABLES, (Rentas por intereses obtenidas por operaciones e inversiones efectuadas con empresas del exterior) (…). Se revoca parcialmente la resolución recurrida en cuanto al ajuste por GASTOS NO DEDUCIBLES ASOCIADOS A INGRESOS NO GRAVABLES Y GASTOS DEDUCIBLES ASOCIADOS A INGRESOS GRAVABLES, debiendo aceptarse en concepto de gastos necesarios, útiles y pertinentes para la generación de rentas gravables, los porcentajes de 23.20% para 1999, 29.46% para el 2000, 25.28% para el 2001, 36.54% para el 2002, 29.55% para el 2003, 32.64% para el 2004 y 35.87% para el 2005, por concepto de “gastos financieros intereses” por la captación de recursos para constituir reservas de liquidez, rechazados por la Administración Tributaria. En todo lo demás, se confirma la resolución recurrida. Proceda la administración A Quo, a liquidar y notificar dicho acto a la contribuyente de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 40 y 163 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios…” (folios 1 a 52 del tomo II del expediente administrativo determinativo); 27) Que la resolución número TFA-114-2012 dictada por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, a las 11:00 horas del 30 de marzo del 2012, fue comunicada a la Dirección de Fiscalización de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales de la Dirección General de Tributación, el día 31 de octubre del 2011 (folio 432 del tomo V del expediente administrativo “determinativo”); 28) Mediante resoluciones número DGH-042-2012 de las 11:30 horas del 12 de diciembre del 2012; DGH-029-2013 de las 15:33 horas del 23 de agosto del 2013; DGH-030-2013 de las 15:35 horas del 23 de agosto del 2013 y DGH-031-2013 de las 15:43 horas del 23 de agosto del 2013, la Dirección General de Hacienda, dispuso la condonación de intereses a favor del Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, Banco BAC San José, Banco Scotiabank de Costa Rica, S.A. y Banca Promérica, S.A., generados por las determinaciones de oficio efectuadas por la Subgerencia de Fiscalización de la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes respecto de los períodos fiscales comprendidos entre 1992 a 2005 (imágenes 123 a 149 del expediente judicial); 29) Que por comprobantes de pago con fecha 02 de abril del 2014, el Banco BCT S.A. canceló los montos determinados por la Administración Tributaria, por concepto del impuesto sobre la renta correspondiente a los períodos fiscales comprendidos entre 1999 a 2005, dado que -conforme a lo indicado por uno de los apoderados del Banco BCT en la etapa de saneamiento de la audiencia de juicio oral y público celebrada el 10 de diciembre del 2019 - la Administración Tributaria resolvió condonarle al Banco BCT los intereses sobre dichos rubros (folios 226 a 231 del expediente judicial; ver respaldo digital de esa diligencia que consta en la carpeta de documentos asociados del expediente virtual); 30) Que por oficio DJMH-229-2013 del 07 de febrero del 2013, la Dirección Jurídica del Ministerio de Hacienda remitió la recomendación de declaratoria de lesividad parcial en contra de la resolución número TFA-114-2012 del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, con sustento en el criterio emitido por la Dirección General de Tributación, en el oficio DGT-598-2012 del 18 de julio del 2012 (folios 1 a 22 del tomo VI del expediente administrativo); 31) Que por resolución número 139-2013 del 22 de febrero del 2013, el Ministro de Hacienda declaró lesivo a los intereses fiscales y económicos del Estado el mencionado pronunciamiento número TFA-114-2012 de las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo del 2012, dictado por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo a favor del Banco BCT (folios 23 a 34 del tomo VI del expediente administrativo); 32) Que tanto la reserva de liquidez como el encaje mínimo legal corresponden a un monto que debe ser "reservado" por las instituciones de intermediación financiera para garantizar su liquidez, y que la diferencia entre ambos radica en qué tipo de institución debe guardar uno u otro (folios 325 y 326 del tomo V del expediente administrativo “determinativo”; 30 y 31 del tomo VI del expediente administrativo y el respaldo digital de la declaración de los testigos peritos Nombre115097 y Nombre3984 , rendida en la audiencia de juicio celebrada el 10-12-2019, que consta en la carpeta de documentos asociados del expediente virtual); 33) Que el calce de plazos corresponde a una metodología para establecer un factor de liquidez mínima de las entidades financieras, que les permite cumplir sus obligaciones en los plazos pactados en el ejercicio de su actividad ordinaria, mediante activos líquidos que generan tanto ingresos gravables como no gravables (ya sea porque no están afectados al impuesto sobre la renta o bien, porque están gravados con otro impuesto) y que por ende, no guardan relación desde un punto de vista técnico con la denominada reserva de liquidez (respaldo digital de las declaraciones de los testigos peritos Nombre115097 y Nombre3984 , rendidas en la audiencia de juicio del 10-12-2019, visible en la carpeta de documentos asociados del expediente virtual); 34) Que el Banco BCT para los períodos fiscales comprendidos entre 1999 y 2002, no llevaba un sistema contable que permitiera separar los gastos no deducibles asociados a ingresos no gravados, y los gastos deducibles asociados a ingresos gravados, mientras que en los años 2003, 2004 y 2005 aplicó la denominada metodología Nombre67376 (ver folios 71, 134 y 135 tomo III del expediente administrativo hojas de trabajo; 01, 05 y 06 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"; respaldo digital de la declaración del testigo perito Nombre115097 rendida en audiencia de juicio del 10-12-2019, visible en la carpeta de documentos asociados del expediente virtual); 35) Que los gastos financieros por el factor mínimo de liquidez o los calces de plazos relacionados con las inversiones a uno o tres meses realizadas por el Banco BCT, fueron reconocidos por la Administración Tributaria al aplicar la proporcionalidad sobre el total de gastos financieros, previa resta en cada caso del monto por encaje mínimo legal (folios 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 81, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 148, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 170, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 202, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 y 212 en el margen superior derecho del tomo I del expediente administrativo "hojas de trabajo"; 5 a 8 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"; respaldo digital de la declaración del testigo perito Nombre3984 en la audiencia de juicio del 10-12-2019, visible en la carpeta de documentos asociados del expediente virtual); 36) Que la SUGEF expresamente señaló que la metodología no fue autorizada para efectos tributarios sino contables (-ver carpeta número 6 que contiene el Informe DFOE-IP-06-2005; legajo de prueba del "informe DFOE-IP-06-2005-); 37) Que no existe un acto de la Administración Tributaria, en los términos del numeral 119 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios -vigente para esa fecha-, mediante el cual, se haya autorizado expresa y directamente al Banco BCT, a fin de que utilizara la metodología Nombre67376 y de que rectificara las declaraciones de períodos fiscales anteriores al año 2003 con sustento en la misma (no se desprende de los folios 82 a 86 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"; ver carpeta número 6 que contiene el Informe DFOE-IP-06-2005; legajo de prueba del "informe DFOE-IP-06-2005); 38) Que el Banco BCT es miembro activo de la Asociación Bancaria Costarricense (ABC), desde el 21 de noviembre de 1983 (folio 170 del expediente judicial); 39) Que la demanda de lesividad fue interpuesta por la representante del Estado, el 20 de febrero del 2014 (folio 259 del expediente judicial).- IIo.- HECHOS NO DEMOSTRADOS. De relevancia para el presente proceso, se tienen por no demostrados los siguientes: a) Que los ingresos declaradas como no gravables y que fueron consideradas por la Administración Tributaria dentro del proceso determinativo como gravables, no fueran producto de fuente costarricense y del giro habitual del Banco, dentro del territorio nacional (no hay prueba en el expediente); b) Que el Banco BCT, S.A. para la implementación de la metodología denominada ABC, realizara el trámite establecido en el artículo 119 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios (No hay prueba al respecto en los autos); c) Que la Administración Tributaria incumpliera lo ordenado en el informe DFOE-IP-06-2005, emitido por la Contraloría General de la República (no se desprende de la prueba allegada a los autos).

IIIo.- OBJETO DEL PROCESO. En la demanda interpuesta por el Banco BCT, S.A., se pretende que se declare la nulidad absoluta del traslado de cargos; resoluciones determinativas, dictadas en el procedimiento de fiscalización del impuesto sobre la renta en períodos comprendidos entre 1999 y 2005, así como, la resolución dictada 114-2012 dictada por el TFA. De manera subsidiaria, solicita que se declare la nulidad parcial del traslado de cargos; resoluciones determinativas, dictadas en el procedimiento de fiscalización del impuesto sobre la renta en períodos comprendidos entre 1999 y 2005, así como, la resolución dictada 114-2012 dictada por el TFA, en todo lo que resulte ablativo a su representado. De manera subsidiaria, si se estimare que no hay motivo de nulidad, se declare la responsabilidad del Estado por conducta lícita y funcionamiento anormal, siendo procedente solicitar que por la excepcional intensidad de la lesión y por la pequeña proporción de los afectados, se declare que no existe fundamento alguno para la imposición de intereses y multas relacionados con los ajustes tributarios que se practican en los actos cuestionados. Asimismo, se condene al Estado al pago de ambas costas, en el supuesto de que se estimen alguna de las pretensiones anulatorias. Por último, solicita la devolución de los montos cancelados el día 2 de abril de 2014, más sus respectivos intereses generados desde el momento del pago, hasta la fecha de su efectiva devolución. LESIVIDAD: Se pide la nulidad del fallo del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, Sala Primera, N° 114-2012, de las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo de 2012, por ser contrario a Derecho y lesivo a los intereses públicos y económicos del Estado, únicamente en cuanto a la revocatoria de los siguientes ajustes: A) Las rentas obtenidas por operaciones e inversiones efectuadas con empresas del exterior; B) Gastos financieros asociados a las "reservas de liquidez". Ello por cuanto, estima que -en términos generales- dichas conductas formales resultan contrarias a los principios de confianza legítima, buena fe, seguridad jurídica, intangibilidad de los actos propios; irretroactividad; a lo dispuesto en los artículos 10, 12 de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional; 129 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica; 136 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 3 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 28590-H y a lo considerado en la sentencia número 94-2013-V de las 13:30 horas del 26 de setiembre del 2013. Por su parte, en la demanda interpuesta por el Estado, se solicita del fallo del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, Sala Primera, N° 114-2012, de las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo de 2012, por ser contrario a Derecho y lesivo a los intereses públicos y económicos del Estado, únicamente en cuanto a la revocatoria de los siguientes ajustes: A) Las rentas obtenidas por operaciones e inversiones efectuadas con empresas del exterior; B) Gastos financieros asociados a las "reservas de liquidez". Específicamente en cuanto el Tribunal Fiscal, pese a reconocer en forma expresa en el considerando VIII que se comparten todos los argumentos que le permitan a la Administración Tributaria la aplicación del criterio de proporcionalidad a las entidades financieras, regulado en el artículo 7 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta y 11 de su Reglamento, en forma ilegal se aparta de tales fundamentaciones jurídicas y en absoluta contradicción con lo desarrollado en el considerando VI) reconoce " ... la deducción de una suma (distinta a la de la proporcionalidad que se conoció en el considerando anterior, representativa de aquellos intereses correspondientes al pago por las captaciones bancarias provenientes de las inversiones del público, y que a la vez han sido dispuestas o colocadas en inversiones transitorias a los efectos de conformar reservas de liquidez, como se ha resuelto reiteradamente…". Asimismo, en cuanto a las rentas obtenidas por operaciones e inversiones efectuadas con empresas en el exterior, sostiene que el concepto de territorialidad no se encuentra limitado a la naturaleza física -geográfica-, obedece más bien a una idea de orden económico, que no se puede desvincular de la actividad generadora de las utilidades, ya que está estrechamente ligada con la estructura económica del sujeto activo, con independencia del origen o procedencia de los dineros utilizados en los negocios y servicios, y de que sean éstos habituales u ocasionales. En consecuencia, sostiene que lo que la Administración Tributaria grava con el impuesto sobre la renta es precisamente ese ingreso obtenido de inversiones en el extranjero, las cuales se forjaron con capital costarricense y en virtud de la actividad de intermediación financiera que desarrolla la entidad bancaria, actividad que se encuentra gestionada en su totalidad dentro del territorio costarricense, está ligada y vinculada con la estructura económica de nuestro país, siendo por tanto renta de fuente costarricense que debe pagar el impuesto correspondiente.

IVo.- PRESUPUESTOS PARA EL PROCESO DE LESIVIDAD. En la especie, el Estado pretende se declare la nulidad de la resolución número 114-2012 dictada por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, Sala Primera a las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo del 2011, por ser contraria a derecho y lesiva a los intereses públicos, fiscales y económicos del Estado, únicamente en lo que se refiere a la revocatoria de lo resuelto por la entonces Administración Tributaria de Grandes Contribuyentes, respecto de los siguientes ajustes: i) Por Gastos no deducibles asociados a ingresos no gravables: gastos financieros asociados a reservas de liquidez; b) Por Ingresos gravables declarados como no gravables (rentas por intereses obtenidas por operaciones e inversiones efectuadas en el exterior). Desde este plano, es menester, de manera breve, establecer el cumplimiento de los diversos presupuestos que impone el ordenamiento jurídico para la interposición de un proceso de lesividad, siendo que la ausencia de uno de estos elementos vedaría y haría innecesario el examen de fondo. De manera general, la lesividad se constituye en un mecanismo jurisdiccional en virtud del cual la Administración pretende la supresión de un acto suyo, que en tesis de principio, genera un efecto favorable a un tercero destinatario. Desde ese plano, en este tipo de contiendas, la lesividad es de corte subjetivo, en tanto pretende la anulación de una conducta que concede un derecho o en general, una situación de beneficio a una persona. Tal figura se encuentra positivizada en el canon 34 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, norma que fija los elementos previos y regulaciones procesales de esta figura. Empero, se encuentra referenciada además en el numeral 173 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Desde la óptica de los presupuestos procesales, se imponen condiciones subjetivas, objetivas, procedimentales y temporales. En cuanto a la arista subjetiva, la legitimación activa se concede a la Administración emisora del acto cuestionado, en tanto que el legitimado pasivo es el receptor de los efectos de la conducta, sea, quien obtiene sus bondades. En lo atinente a la arista objetiva, la lesividad se constituye como un mecanismo de eliminación jurídica de actos administrativos que sean disconformes sustancialmente con el ordenamiento jurídico, sea, los actos que padezcan de algún nivel de invalidez, sea absoluta o relativa, en cualquiera de sus tipologías (artículos 128, 158, 165 y concordantes de la citada Ley General No. 6227). En esa línea, la Administración debe declarar lesivo a los intereses públicos esa conducta, lo que debe ser establecido dentro de un marco de acciones internas de la administración que son impostergables para formular la acción. En efecto, en el orden procedimental, se impone que el jerarca máximo supremo de la Administración Pública respectiva declare la lesividad del acto, sea por lesión a intereses económicos, fiscales o de otra índole que se desprendan del interés público, para lo cual, ha de contar con un criterio jurídico-técnico de base que sustente esa determinación. A diferencia de otras figuras de supresión de conductas públicas, no requiere de audiencia al tercero, sino solo de acciones a lo interno de la Administración, siendo que es dentro del proceso judicial que el tercero podrá establecer sus alegatos de defensa. Ahora bien, cuando el acto emane del Estado (ver artículo 1 de la citada Ley General), sea, de la Administración Central, la demanda solo podrá ser incoada por la Procuraduría General de la República (canon 16 de la Ley No. Placa494), previo pedimento del jerarca máximo supremo y previo declaratoria interna de lesividad, con detalle de los motivos de ese criterio. En cuanto a la dimensión temporal, la normativa procesal establece un plazo de un año contado a partir de la emisión del acto (que no de su comunicación) para declararlo lesivo a los intereses públicos, y luego de esa declaratoria (y no a partir del vencimiento de ese primer año) se otorga un plazo de un año para plantear la acción contenciosa administrativa a modo de plazo fatal de caducidad, salvo en casos de actos con nulidad absoluta, en cuyo caso, la declaratoria de lesividad puede realizarse en tanto perduren sus efectos, corriendo el año aludido desde el cese definitivo de dichos efectos. En esa hipótesis, la eventual sentencia estimatoria dispondrá la nulidad únicamente para la inaplicabilidad futura del acto, constituyéndose en una excepción expresa al régimen de retroactividad de las nulidades absolutas establecido por el ordinal 171 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. La excepción a ese aspecto temporal de un año se configura en tutela de dominio público, caso en el que la acción de lesividad no está sujeta a plazo por la aplicación de la cláusula general de imprescriptibilidad de ese tipo de bienes según se deriva del canon 261 del Código Civil. Ahora bien, en materia tributaria, la acción de caducidad, además de las normas referidas, se encuentra regulada en el artículo 165 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios (vigente en ese momento). En esta materia fiscal, conforme al canon 41 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, el plazo máximo para incoar el proceso será el mismo que imponga el ordenamiento como plazo de prescripción para el respectivo derecho de fondo, sea, 3 o 5 años (numeral 51 del Código Tributario, vigente en ese momento) en potestades determinativas y 4 años en menesteres sancionatorios (precepto 71 ibídem, versión vigente en ese momento). Aunado a ello, en esta dinámica fiscal, al estar vedada del jerarca natural la potestad de revisión de las conductas de las Administraciones Tributarias inferiores (numeral 102 incisos b y d de la Ley No. 6227), competencia que ha sido otorgada por imperativo de ley al Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, según se desprende del ordinal 156 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios (vigente en ese momento), constituyéndose en esa fase recursiva una jerarquía impropia monofásica (control no jerárquico), es claro que el plazo para declarar la lesividad que corre en contra del Ministro de la cartera de Hacienda (competencia que se sustenta en que reúne la condición de jerarca máximo supremo tanto del órgano revisado como del contralor no jerárquico, ambos parte de la misma estructura de esa Administración), se computa desde el momento en que ese órgano contralor impropio monofásico, pone en conocimiento de la Administración A quo, lo dispuesto en virtud de su competencia apelativa. Previo a ese instante, el jerarca natural se encuentra en imposibilidad material y jurídica de conocer de un acto que puede resultar potencialmente lesivo a los intereses fiscales, económicos o públicos que debe tutelar y por ende, incapacitado para ejercitar sus potestades para declarar lesiva esa actuación. Desde luego que cuando el acto que se estima irregular derive de una administración inferior, al no estarse ante el aludido supuesto de jerarquía impropia monofásica, tal excepcionalidad no es aplicable, y el plazo se computa desde la adopción del acto. En la especie, del análisis de los autos, se concluye que la declaratoria de lesividad interna cumple los presupuestos señalados. Según se ha establecido, la resolución número TFA-114-2012 de las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo del 2012, que se pide sea declarada nula parcialmente, fue comunicada a la Dirección de Fiscalización de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales de la Dirección General de Tributación, el día 20 de marzo del 2012 (folios 372 a 432 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "Determinativo). Asimismo, en oficio DJMH-229-2013 del 07 de febrero del 2013, la Dirección Jurídica del Ministerio de Hacienda remitió la recomendación de declaratoria de lesividad parcial en contra de la resolución número TFA-114-2012 del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, con sustento en el criterio emitido por la Dirección General de Tributación, en el oficio DGT-598-2012 del 18 de julio del 2012 (folios 1 a 22 del tomo VI del expediente administrativo). Con base en dicho criterio técnico jurídico, por resolución número 139-2013 del 22 de febrero del 2013, el Ministro de Hacienda declaró lesivo a los intereses fiscales y económicos del Estado el mencionado pronunciamiento número TFA-114-2012 de las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo del 2012, dictado por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo a favor del Banco BCT (folios 23 a 34 del tomo VI del expediente administrativo). Como se observa, esa declaratoria de lesividad fue dictada dentro del año posterior a que el órgano contralor impropio monofásico, puso en conocimiento de la Administración A quo, lo dispuesto en virtud de su competencia apelativa. A partir de ese momento, sea el 20 de marzo del 2012, el jerarca natural se encontraba en la posibilidad material y jurídica de conocer de un acto que puede resultar potencialmente lesivo a los intereses fiscales, económicos o públicos que debe tutelar y por ende, capacitado para ejercitar sus potestades para declarar lesiva esa conducta formal -únicamente en cuanto reconoció como gastos deducibles aquellos de índole financiero asociados a reservas de liquidez, y por revocar lo resuelto por el aquo respecto a las rentas obtenidas por operaciones e inversiones efectuadas con empresas del exterior-, como en definitiva lo hizo al dictar la resolución 114-2012 del 12 de marzo del 2012. Finalmente, la demanda objeto del presente proceso se interpuso el 20 de febrero del 2014, sea, dentro del año posterior a la declaratoria administrativa de lesividad (folio 259 del expediente judicial). Por otra parte, la demanda se presenta por la Procuraduría General de la República contra la entidad bancaria que se beneficia del acto parcialmente cuestionado, por lo que, en términos del ámbito legitimante tanto activo como pasivo, se cumplen con las exigencias referidas. Por último y contrario a lo que sostienen los representantes del Banco BCT, la resolución mediante la cual el Ministro de Hacienda declaró lesiva a los intereses económicos y fiscales del Estado el pronunciamiento número TFA-114-2012 dictado por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, no resulta contrario a lo dispuesto en el artículo 136 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, tal y como se desprende de la siguiente transcripción parcial de ese acto: “…resulta improcedente reconocerle AL CONTRIBUYENTE Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima, los ingresos obtenidos mediante operaciones e inversiones en el extranjero con capital forjado en el territorio nacional, como parte de su actividad, la cual, se gestiona y desarrolla dentro del territorio nacional, de forma que los ingresos generados por dichas inversiones no son capitales ubicados fuera del territorio nacional sino que constituyen sumas dinerarias generadas mediante la actividad de intermediación que la misma realiza en Costa Rica (…) En el presente asunto, el contribuyente Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima está obligado a construir (sic) la reserva por concepto de encaje mínimo legal, pero no está obligado a contituir la reserva de liquidez, conforme lo establece el Banco Central de Costa Rica (…) Así las cosas, teniendo claramente establecido que el encaje mínimo legal y la reserva de liquidez, no son sinónimos, considera este Despacho que con la interpretación del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo de conocer ambas figuras como la misma, se estaría duplicando el gasto por el mismo concepto…” (folios 22 a 35 del tomo VI del expediente administrativo). En consecuencia, el hecho de que la entidad demandada no esté de acuerdo con el fundamento utilizado por el Ministro de Hacienda para sustentar su decisión de declarar parcialmente lesiva la resolución TFA 114-2012 dictada por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, no implica que se configure una violación a lo dispuesto en el numeral 136 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Así las cosas, se ingresa de seguido al examen de la presente acción.

Vo.- RESPECTO A LOS GASTOS FINANCIEROS POR RESERVAS DE LIQUIDEZ RECONOCIDOS POR EL TRIBUNAL FISCAL ADMINISTRATIVO AL BANCO POPULAR Y DE DESARROLLO COMUNAL. Este Tribunal resuelve lo que de seguido se expone: a) La utilización errónea del término reserva de liquidez como sinónimo de factor mínimo de liquidez, como sustento de la decisión adoptada por el TFA. En primera instancia y con fundamento en los numerales 62 y 117 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica, así como, en los documentos visibles de folios 325 y 326 del tomo V del expediente administrativo “determinativo”; 30 y 31 del tomo VI del expediente administrativo y en la declaración de los testigos peritos Nombre115097 y Nombre3984 -ver respaldo digital de la audiencia de juicio celebrada el 10-12-2019, que consta en la carpeta de documentos asociados del expediente virtual-, este órgano colegiado estima que tanto la reserva de liquidez como el encaje mínimo legal corresponden a un monto que debe ser "reservado" por las instituciones de intermediación financiera para garantizar su liquidez, y que la diferencia entre ambos radica en qué tipo de institución debe guardar uno u otro, por lo que, técnicamente no podría un Banco estar obligado a mantener tanto el encaje mínimo legal como la reserva de liquidez, cuando menos no la entendida conforme a lo dispuesto en el numeral 117 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central. En igual sentido, considera este Tribunal que el calce de plazos corresponde a una metodología para establecer un factor de liquidez mínima de las entidades financieras, que les permite cumplir sus obligaciones en los plazos pactados en el ejercicio de su actividad ordinaria, mediante activos líquidos que generan tanto ingresos gravables como no gravables (ya sea porque no están afectados al impuesto sobre la renta o bien, porque están gravados con otro impuesto) y que por ende, no guardan relación desde un punto de vista técnico con la denominada reserva de liquidez (respaldo digital de las declaraciones de los testigos peritos Nombre115097 y Nombre3984 , rendidas en la audiencia de juicio del 10-12-2019, visible en la carpeta de documentos asociados del expediente virtual). A partir de lo anteriormente expuesto, se estima que el considerando IX de la resolución TFA-114-2012 dictada por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, titulado “Reserva de Liquidez”, es contradictorio con lo señalado por ese mismo órgano en el considerando VIII de ese mismo pronunciamiento, respecto al análisis que realiza en cuanto al tema de la proporcionalidad, y su aplicación según lo establecido en los numerales 7 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta y 11 su Reglamento (ver folios 401 a 430 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "Determinativo"). Ello por cuanto, en el considerando VIII relacionado con la “Aplicación del Criterio de Proporcionalidad y Consecuente Rechazo de Gastos Asociados a Ingresos no Gravables”, el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo sostuvo -en lo que interesa- que “…Debe enfatizarse el hecho de que lo aplicado era procedente, por cuanto todos los costos y gastos según estados financieros, se utilizaron indistintamente para producir rentas gravables y no gravables con impuesto a las utilidades y por ello tales gastos reportados por la intervenida, no pueden aplicarse únicamente a los ingresos gravables, sino, a la totalidad de los ingresos obtenidos en los períodos fiscales de estudio, puesto que es evidente que la estructura empresarial-operacional total (técnica, profesional y administrativa) contempla la planeación, coordinación, ejecución y control, de todas las actividades y funciones empresariales, tendientes a lograr los ingresos gravables y no gravables…” (folio 411 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"; el resaltado no es del original); no obstante, en el considerando IX denominado “Reservas de Liquidez”, el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo sostuvo que “… debe admitirse y se ha admitido, la deducción de una suma (distinta a la de la proporcionalidad que se conoció en el considerando anterior), representativa de aquellos intereses correspondientes al pago por captaciones bancarias provenientes de las inversiones del público, y que a la vez han sido dispuestas o colocadas en inversiones transitorias a los efectos de conformar reservas de liquidez (…) De conformidad con lo hasta aquí expuesto y en relación al tema de la constitución de reservas de liquidez y su generación de gastos financieros con ellas relacionadas, y admitiéndose como prueba documental idónea y legal a los efectos de determinar las porcentajes admisibles a aceptar en concepto de gastos necesarios, útiles y pertinentes para la generación de rentas gravables, y una vez revisados los cálculos efectuados por la intervenida, lo procedente es admitir los porcentajes de 23.20%, 29.46%, 25.28%, 36.54%, 29.55%, 32.64% y 35.87%, conforme a la información certificada por la Super Intendencia General de Entidades Financieras…” (folios 425 a 429 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"). Sin perjuicio de que esa contradicción se hace de nuevo patente, al estimar en la parte final de ese mismo considerando IX, que “… Las argumentaciones relacionadas con el presente aspecto en lo que corresponde a la constitución de reservas de liquidez, no deben aplicarse a las pretensiones de la contribuyente en el sentido de que se admita igualmente en relación a los otros gastos operativos y administrativos incurridos en los períodos fiscales auditados, por cuanto lo admitido en el concepto dicho, lo es únicamente y por vía de excepción, en cuanto a los intereses que se relacionan con la constitución de tales reservas de liquidez, según ha sido ampliamente expuesto en la presente resolución, además de que admitir tales pretensiones se estaría vulnerando la figura de la proporcionalidad aplicada en autos y admitiéndose en contraposición a lo dispuesto por la ley para este tipo de contribuyente, la aplicación de la renta producto en el cual sí es posible rebajar todos los gastos relacionados con la renta gravable…” (folio 429 vuelto del tomo VI del expediente administrativo "determinativo"). Por otra parte, también incurre dicho contralor monofásico no jerárquico de legalidad, en una imprecisión técnica, pues salta a la vista como utiliza los términos de reserva de liquidez y del encaje mínimo legal, como si se tratara de un mismo concepto, ya que incluso sostiene que “…todos los argumentos de este Tribunal en cuanto a la admisibilidad de aquellos gastos financieros relacionados con la constitución de reservas de liquidez, se sustentan en los mismos principios tributarios que la administración ha utilizado a los efectos del encaje mínimo legal…” (folio 428 vuelto del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"), afirmación que sería aceptable sólo si el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo se estuviera refiriendo a la reserva de liquidez que deben mantener aquellas entidades de intermediación financiera que no están obligadas a mantener los fondos inmovilizados del encaje mínimo legal; pero lo cierto es que en la especie, se refiere al calce de plazos o al factor mínimo de liquidez, que no es igual a reserva de liquidez. Considera este órgano colegiado que una imprecisión técnica de esta naturaleza no puede ser obviada, menos aun tratándose del órgano administrativo que por la naturaleza de la función que realiza (contralor monofásico no jerárquico de legalidad en materia tributaria) está obligado a ser técnica y conceptualmente preciso. En consecuencia, la discusión acerca de si procede o no reconocer como gastos deducibles, el factor mínimo de liquidez o los calces de plazos relacionados con las inversiones a uno o tres meses realizadas por el Banco BCT a partir de un exceso de liquidez, y si dicho reconocimiento debe realizarse por medio de la proporcionalidad que establecen los artículos 7 de la Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta y 11 de su reglamento, carece en principio de interés, ya que el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo no se refiere a esos extremos sino a la reserva de liquidez; sin perjuicio de que dicho órgano también omitió indicar en su resolución, si el factor mínimo de liquidez o los calces de plazos, estaban o no contemplados en los supuestos a los que la Administración Tributaria ya había aplicado la proporcionalidad (ver en sentido similar, las sentencias número 95-2009-V de las 10:30 horas del 18 de noviembre del 2019 y 103-2019-V de las 13:30 horas del 10 de diciembre del 2019, dictadas por la Sección Quinta del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda). b) Sobre los alcances de la sentencia 94-2013-V en el caso concreto. Sin perjuicio de lo expuesto en el apartado precedente y dados los alegatos planteados por el representante del Banco BCT, este Tribunal estima necesario determinar los alcances de la sentencia 94-2013-V dictada a las 13:30 horas del 26 de setiembre del 2013 por la Sección V del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, y a partir de lo anterior, establecer si resulta o no aplicable en la especie. En ese sentido, tal y como afirman los apoderados del Banco BCT, en dicho pronunciamiento se sostiene que “…existe una serie de normas y principios que rigen la actividad de intermediación financiera, por lo que el examen del tema exige un tratamiento integral y acorde con el cumplimiento de uno de los objetivos del Banco Central de Costa Rica, cual es la promoción "de un sistema de intermediación financiera estable, eficiente y competitivo." (artículo 2 de la Ley 7558). Con el propósito de cumplir con dicho objetivo, la Administración concernida ha establecido una serie de regulaciones en orden a controlar el funcionamiento y el control de las entidades financieras y de promover condiciones favorables para fortalecer la liquidez y la solvencia del sistema financiero. En esta línea, es que dichas entidades son sometidas a la supervisión por parte de la Superintendencia de Entidades Financieras, la cual cuenta entre sus competencias, la de fiscalizar el accionar de las mismas, siempre bajo el norte de que éstas deben mantener un alto nivel de solvencia y un bajo nivel de riesgo, fortaleciendo con ello la liquidez y la estabilidad del sistema de intermediación. De allí que se emiten una serie de regulaciones cuya finalidad es lograr que las entidades financieras se ajusten a ciertos parámetros de eficiencia. Una de esas disposiciones normativas es precisamente el Acuerdo SUGEF-24-00, aprobado por el Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero mediante artículo 8 del acta de la sesión número 197-2000, celebrada el once de diciembre del dos mil, en el cual se aprobó el Reglamento para Juzgar la Situación Económica-Financiera de las Entidades Fiscalizadas. Dicho cuerpo normativo, define seis tipos diferentes de riesgos: riesgo de solvencia, riesgo de liquidez, riesgo de variaciones en las tasas de interés, riesgo cambiario, riesgo de crédito y riesgo operacional. Al referirse al riesgo de liquidez, indica que éste "Se origina cuando la entidad financiera no posee los recursos líquidos necesarios para atender sus exigibilidades u obligaciones con terceros en el corto plazo." Del contenido de esta definición, así como de los objetivos del Banco Central de Costa Rica anteriormente reseñados, se infiere con claridad que las empresas o entidades que se dediquen a la actividad de intermediación financiera, se encuentran obligadas a mantener un mínimo de liquidez, pues solo ello permite un sistema financiero estable, ya que de lo contrario aumentaría el nivel de riesgo. Ello se evidencia aún más, si se toma en consideración que uno de los elementos que toma en consideración la Superintendencia al juzgar la situación económica-financiera de las entidades, es precisamente la liquidez (…) Se trata entonces de una obligación que permite además su funcionamiento, pues de lo contrario, la entidad se vería expuesta a una calificación negativa por parte de la Superintendencia, y se produciría un funcionamiento anormal de la entidad. Así, siendo la liquidez una norma de funcionamiento esencial en este tipo de entidades, es claro para este Órgano decisor que los costos que implique el cumplimiento de esta obligación, se constituyen en útiles y necesarios para generar renta gravable, y por lo tanto se traducen gastos deducibles, a tenor de lo dispuesto en los artículos 1, 7, 8 y 14 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta…” (el resaltado no es del original). Ahora bien, en esa misma sentencia se indica que “…Los artículos 7 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta y 11 de su Reglamento, preven el tratamiento que debe darse a los casos en los cuales los contribuyentes, al desarrollar una actividad lucrativa, generen rentas gravadas y no gravadas y gastos asociados con ambos tipos de ingreso. Esto es relevante si recordamos que a tenor de los artículos 7 y 14 de la Ley Nº 7092, la renta imponible es la renta neta de los contribuyentes, es decir, "el resultado de deducir de la renta bruta los costos y gastos útiles necesarios y pertinentes para producir la utilidad o beneficio, y las otras erogaciones expresamente autorizadas por esta ley, debidamente respaldadas por comprobantes y registradas en la contabilidad", de lo cual se sigue que los gastos vinculados con ingresos no gravados no pueden ser deducidos, y que para el caso de erogaciones vinculadas a actividades gravadas pero que también se encuentran asociadas a actividades no gravadas, la deducción debe hacerse de forma proporcional. El ordenamiento permite que el contribuyente establezca esa proporción, sin embargo, cuando como en este caso, el sistema utilizado por éste no resulta fehaciente, corresponde a la Administración aplicar el sistema establecido en el ordenamiento jurídico. En este sentido, el párrafo final del artículo 7 de la Ley Nº 7092 dispone: "Artículo 7.- (...) Cuando los costos, gastos o erogaciones autorizados se efectúen para producir indistintamente rentas gravadas o exentas, se deberá deducir solamente la proporción que corresponda a las rentas gravadas." Y por su parte, el párrafo primero del artículo 11 del Reglamento establece: "Artículo 11.- La renta se determina deduciendo de la renta bruta los costos y gastos útiles, necesarios y pertinentes permitidos por ley. Cuando los gastos, costos y erogaciones se efectúen para producir indistintamente rentas gravadas y exentas, se debe deducir solamente la proporción que corresponda a las rentas gravadas. Cuando el contribuyente no pueda justificar debidamente una proporción diferente, deberá deducir la suma que resulte de aplicar el porcentaje obtenido al relacionar las rentas gravadas con las rentas totales." En consecuencia, este Órgano colegiado estima que la aplicación del sistema de proporcionalidad realizada resulta procedente y conforme con lo dispuesto en la Ley y su Reglamento, en donde se establece con claridad que en aquellos casos en los cuales el contribuyente tenga erogaciones vinculadas a ingresos gravados y no gravados, y no pueda justificar de forma adecuada una proporción diferente a la establecida en el ordenamiento, se aplicará la fórmula dispuesta para ello…” (el resaltado no es del original). En consecuencia, si bien es cierto la Administración Tributaria podría reconocer los gastos relacionados con el cumplimiento del factor mínimo de liquidez, en una proporción diferente a la establecida en la parte final del artículo 11 del Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta; también lo es, que esos gastos deberán estar debidamente justificados en los registros contables del sujeto pasivo, a fin de determinar cuáles son los gastos no deducibles asociados a rentas no gravadas y cuáles corresponden a gastos deducibles asociados a rentas gravadas, lo cual, es esencial en aquellos supuestos -como el que nos ocupa- en que el Banco BCT ha producido indistintamente rentas gravadas o exentas. Lo anterior adquiere relevancia en el caso concreto, pues en este tipo de impuesto, es el propio sujeto pasivo el que, a través de su declaración, determina el monto a pagar por concepto de dicho tributo. No obstante, en el marco de la liquidación de una obligación tributaria como la que es objeto de examen, la Administración Tributaria procede a verificar los datos a fin de constatar los elementos de la declaración rendida, con los datos que obra en manos del contribuyente, y es sobre este último en quien recae la carga probatoria de aquellos hechos relacionados con la disminución de la base imponible. Tal es el sentido de las disposiciones establecidas en los numerales 128 y 140 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, 19 del Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria, Decreto Ejecutivo número 29264 de veintiuno de enero del 2001 (todos vigentes en ese momento). El artículo 19 del referido reglamento, expresamente señalaba que: "…La carga de la prueba incumbe a la Administración Tributaria respecto de los hechos constitutivos de la obligación tributaria, mientras que incumbe al contribuyente, responsable o declarante respecto de los hechos impeditivos, modificativos o extintivos de la obligación tributaria. En este sentido, corresponderá a estos últimos, según el caso, demostrar los hechos que configuren sus costos, gastos, pasivos, créditos fiscales, exenciones, no sujeciones, descuentos y en general los beneficios fiscales que alega existentes a su favor." De modo que la validez de la autodeterminación realizada por parte del contribuyente respecto de los gastos no deducibles, asociados a ingresos no gravables, y por consiguiente de los gastos deducibles asociados a ingresos gravables, está sujeta a verificación, y corresponde al contribuyente, en este caso al Banco BCT acreditar la exactitud del monto autodeterminado, lo cual debe demostrarse a través del sistema contable de dicha entidad bancaria, mismo que, necesariamente, debe ajustarse a los principios de contabilidad generalmente aceptados, a tenor de lo establecido en el precepto 57 del Reglamento de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 18445-H, debería reflejar con claridad el monto de los gastos no deducibles asociados a ingresos no gravables. Sin perjuicio, claro está de las modificaciones al Plan de Cuentas para Entidades Financieras publicadas en La Gaceta número 77 del miércoles 21 de abril del 2004, documento conforme al cual, se adiciona el código de cuenta número 819, que permite el control e identificación de los gastos no deducibles asociados con los ingresos no sujetos al pago del Impuesto sobre la Renta (folios 125 y 126 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"). En la especie, se tiene por acreditado que el Banco BCT para los períodos fiscales comprendidos entre 1999 y 2002, no llevaba un sistema contable que permitiera separar los gastos no deducibles asociados a ingresos no gravados, y los gastos deducibles asociados a ingresos gravados, mientras que en los años 2003, 2004 y 2005 aplicó la denominada metodología Nombre67376 (ver folios 71, 134 y 135 tomo III del expediente administrativo hojas de trabajo; 01, 05 y 06 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"; respaldo digital de la declaración del testigo perito Nombre115097 rendida en audiencia de juicio del 10-12-2019, visible en la carpeta de documentos asociados del expediente virtual); extremos que en todo caso, son aceptados por la propia entidad bancaria tanto en escrito del 08 de mayo del 2007, al manifestar: “…Para el cálculo de los gastos asociados a los ingresos no gravables en las presentaciones de Impuesto sobre la Renta rectificadas correspondientes a los períodos fiscales 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 y para los períodos fiscales 2003, 2004 y 2005 se utilizó la metodología acordada por la Asociación Bancaria Costarricense…”; como en memorial del 05 de diciembre del 2006, al indicar: “… Año 2004 y Año 2005. Se utilizó la metodología acordada por la Asociación bancaria Costarricense en el año 2003, para el cálculo de los gastos financieros, los gastos administrativos y el gasto por diferencial cambiario (…) Año 2003 Se calculó con el exceso de liquidez determinada por medio de los saldos del calce a un mes plazo deduciendo de los saldos de la cuenta de encaje el saldo de los préstamos a la banca estatal, ajustados por la volatilidad de los saldos de cuentas corrientes diarias (…) Años 2002, 2001, 2000 y 1999 No se calcularon gastos asociados a los ingresos no gravados…” (folios 71, 134 y 135 del tomo III del expediente administrativo "hojas de trabajo"; el resaltado es del original). De esta manera, ante la omisión por parte del Banco BCT, de contar con una metodología acorde con los parámetros que exige el ordenamiento jurídico, esto es, de uno que cuente con el respaldo que permita determinar con claridad la totalidad de las erogaciones vinculadas a ingresos no gravables, y por ende las vinculadas a ingresos gravables, durante los períodos fiscales comprendidos entre 1999 a 2005, se obligó a la Administración concernida a aplicar el sistema cuestionado previsto en los numerales 7 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta y 11 de su Reglamento, para aquellos contribuyentes que generen de manera indistinta ingresos gravados o no con dicho tributo. En otras palabras, si bien el ordenamiento jurídico permite que el contribuyente establezca esa proporción -específicamente en cuanto a los gastos por cumplir el factor mínimo de liquidez y el calce de plazos, que es lo que interesa en el caso concreto-, cuando el sistema utilizado por aquel no resulta fehaciente -como en la especie-, corresponde a la Administración aplicar el sistema establecido en el ordenamiento jurídico. Aunado a lo anterior, de las “hojas de trabajo” y del traslado de cargos, se desprende que los gastos financieros por el factor mínimo de liquidez o los calces de plazos relacionados con las inversiones a uno o tres meses realizadas por el Banco BCT, fueron reconocidos por la Administración Tributaria al aplicar la proporcionalidad sobre el total de gastos financieros, previa resta en cada caso del monto por encaje mínimo legal, aspecto al que omitió referirse el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo en la resolución impugnada, y que en definitiva provocó que realizara una doble asignación de gastos por un mismo concepto (folios 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 81, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 148, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 170, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 202, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 y 212 en el margen superior derecho del tomo I del expediente administrativo "hojas de trabajo"; 5 a 8 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"; respaldo digital de la declaración del testigo perito Nombre3984 en la audiencia de juicio del 10-12-2019, visible en la carpeta de documentos asociados del expediente virtual). En razón de lo anterior, los alegatos planteados por el Banco BCT, en el sentido de que la contabilidad que presentó en el procedimiento de fiscalización no fue valorada por la Administración Tributaria, carece de sustento. c) Respecto al Oficio número SUGEF 2207-201004134 del 08 de julio del 2010 y a la certificación SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883. En primera instancia, cabe aclarar que contrario a lo indicado por el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo en el considerando IX de la resolución 114-2012, la certificación número SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 extendida por la SUGEF a las 14:00 horas del 25 de enero del 2012, no es el documento mediante el cual, dicha Superintendencia contestó el requerimiento de información planteado por el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo mediante resolución interlocutoria número 084-2010 de las 08:50 horas del 28 de abril del 2010 (folios 325 a 327 del tomo V del expediente administrativo “determinativo”). Lo anterior adquiere relevancia en el caso concreto, por las razones que de seguido se exponen: i) Por resolución interlocutoria INTER N° 084-2010 de las 08:50 horas del 28 de abril del 2010, el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo solicitó a la SUGEF la siguiente información relacionada con el Banco BCT: “…los montos o cantidades que la citada entidad mantiene en activos líquidos o reservas de liquidez, que le permitan cumplir con sus obligaciones en los plazos pactados en su actividad ordinaria de intermediación financiera. Lo anterior se requiere en relación a los períodos fiscales 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 y 2005. Se aclara que la anterior petición es en cuanto a los activos líquidos de referencia y no al porcentaje correspondiente al encaje legal que como reserva obligatoria se mantiene en el Banco Central de Costa Rica (…) Se solicita en lo pertinente, en caso de que ello sea posible, la referencia tanto de las cantidades dispuestas para la constitución de tales activos líquidos, en relación con las captaciones del público por parte de la entidad financiera, como el porcentaje representativo entre dichas captaciones y la constitución de tales activos líquidos…” (folios 325 a 327 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"; el resaltado no es del original); ii) En el oficio SUGEF 2207-201004134 del 08 de julio del 2010, la Dirección General de Servicios Técnicos de la SUGEF, indicó a la Jueza Instructora del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo que “…Nos referimos a la resolución interlocutoria INTER N° 084-2010, recibida en esta Superintendencia el 30 de abril del 2010, mediante la cual se solicita en relación con la entidad “Banco BCT Sociedad Anónima” lo siguiente: (…) En relación con lo anterior, nos permitimos indicarle que la información solicitada no es requerida por la Superintendencia en los términos indicados en su oficio. El "Plan de cuentas para entidades, grupos y conglomerados financieros, establece la estructura contable: clases, grupos, cuentas, subcuentas y cuentas analíticas, que deben utilizar los intermediarios financieros. De acuerdo al Plan de cuentas, las entidades deben clasificar sus cuentas en las siguientes clases: 110 disponibilidades, 120 Inversiones en instrumentos financieros, 130 Cartera de créditos, 140 Cuentas y comisiones por cobrar, 150 Bienes realizables, 160 Participación en el capital de otras empresas, 170 Inmuebles mobiliario y equipo, 180 Otros activos, 190 Inversiones en propiedades. En lo que respecta a la clase 110 "Disponibilidades", de acuerdo con lo que establece el plan de cuentas, el mismo "comprende los activos que por su liquidez cuentan con disponibilidad inmediata. Se incluyen por lo tanto, el dinero efectivo, los metales precisos y las remesas en tránsito, los depósitos a la vista y cuentas corrientes en el Banco Central de Costa Rica, entidades financieras del país y del exterior y aquellos documentos de cobro inmediato (...) Por otra parte, en cuanto a la clase 120 "Inversiones en Instrumentos financieros", el plan de cuentas establece en el concepto de esta cuenta que "representa un contrato que simultáneamente da lugar a un activo financiero en una entidad y a un pasivo financiero o un instrumento de capital en otra empresa o entidad, los cuales pueden estar incorporados o no en un documento, que por su configuración jurídica propia y régimen de transmisión puedan ser objeto de negociación en un mercado financiero o en una bolsa de valores reconocida y debidamente regulada" (…) Una vez hechas las aclaraciones anteriores, seguidamente me permito remitirle el saldo de las cuentas 110, 120, 211, y 213, al 31 de diciembre de los años indicados, tal y como fueron reportadas a esta Superintendencia por la respectiva entidad.

Período Disponibilidades (110) Inver.Inst. Finac (120) Cap a la vista (211) Cap a plazo (213) Diciembre-1999 1.236.914.835 2.963.804.478 688.952.534 250.397.008 Diciembre-2000 1.926.335.170 2.158.091.001 2.301.013.310 8.291.497.126 Diciembre-2001 2.299.743.780 3.163.086.070 2.653.440.877 6.930.332.146 Diciembre-2002 2.659.824.712 3.883.578.378 2.588.985.751 5.691.594.786 Diciembre-2003 3.524.264.578 1.380.693.127 2.992.906.972 4.078.332.123 Diciembre-2004 2.838.397.433 2.408.112.170 5.124.465.220 5.585.793.826 Diciembre-2005 6.847.815.316 1.758.826.242 6.557.011.293 7.692.571.349 (folios 334 a 336 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"); iii) Que a consecuencia de la solicitud de información planteada por el Banco BCT el 04 de noviembre del 2011, la SUGEF emitió la constancia número SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 de las 14:00 horas del 25 de enero del 2012, documento en el cual indica que los datos “…corresponden a la información contable y financiera remitida por Banco BCT S.A. y Financiera Londres Ltda, a esta Superintendencia, y que se encuentra disponible en nuestras bases de datos para los períodos comprendidos entre 1999 y 2002, ambos inclusive…” y que se refiere a “los saldos de las cuentas contables solicitadas, así como los vencimientos a 3 meses en moneda nacional y moneda extranjera” (folios 342 a 346 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"); iv) Que por escrito fechado 22 de febrero del 2012, el representante del Banco BCT presentó ante el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, no sólo la copia de la constancia emitida por la SUGEF el 25 de enero del 2012 a que se hizo referencia en el apartado precedente, sino que además, con base en dicha información procedió a determinar los porcentajes por factor de liquidez para cada uno de los años fiscales auditados, dividiendo el total de vencimientos a 3 meses promedio ajustados por volatibilidad entre el promedio total del pasivo financiero, obteniendo el siguiente resultado:

Período Fiscal Factor de Liquidez 1999 23.20% 2000 29.46% 2001 25.28% 2002 36.54% 2003 29.55% 2004 32.64% 2005 35.87% (folios 357 a 364 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"); v) A partir de lo anteriormente expuesto, queda en evidencia que la respuesta al requerimiento de información realizado por el TFA el 28 de abril del 2010, no fue atendido por la SUGEF mediante constancia número SUGEF 0313-2012/201108883 de las 14:00 horas del 25 de enero del 2012, como lo afirma el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo en la resolución cuestionada (folio 429 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"); sino mediante oficio SUGEF 2207-201004134 del 08 de julio del 2010, en que la Dirección General de Servicios Técnicos de la SUGEF, señaló -en que lo interesa- que "En relación con lo anterior, nos permitimos indicarle que la información solicitada no es requerida por la Superintendencia en los términos indicados en su oficio"; razón por la cual, los porcentajes que reconoció el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo por concepto de “gastos financieros intereses” incurridos por la captación de recursos para constituir reservas de liquidez por el Banco BCT, no fue un porcentaje dado por la SUGEF, sino que responde a una operación realizada por el propio Banco BCT, y que no resulta ser un referente adecuado para establecer el quatum del gasto asociado a un encaje o una reserva -en los términos de lo resuelto por el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo en la resolución 114-2012-, ya que estas dos figuras, corresponden como se ha dicho, a sumas de las cuales la entidad se desprende, separándolas de aquellas otras que conforme a su giro habitual puede utilizar. d) Nombre14412. A partir de lo expuesto, este órgano colegiado considera que la resolución número TFA-114-2012 de las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo del 2012, respecto al considerando IX y a la parte dispositiva relacionada con ese aspecto, contiene vicios generadores de nulidad absoluta tanto en el motivo y contenido, en tanto las premisas de la cuales partió -motivo- para resolver de la forma antes señalada -contenido- no resultaban conformes con el ordenamiento jurídico. Ello por cuanto, resulta contradictoria con la propia tesis que expuso el Tribunal Fiscal Administración respecto a la aplicación del criterio de proporcionalidad; imprecisa en su terminología, al referirse a figuras jurídicas diversas de forma indiscriminada, generando incertidumbre a la Administración y al administrado; y omisa al reconocer sobre una reserva de liquidez que no lo es tal, gastos deducibles obviando que en cuanto al encaje mínimo legal ya se había reconocido el respectivo porcentaje para cada uno de los años fiscales auditados y sobre los demás gastos financieros se les había aplicado la proporcionalidad del artículo 7 de la Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta y el 11 de su reglamento, por lo que conforme a los términos de lo resuelto en la conducta formal cuestionada número TFA 114-2012, se hizo un doble reconocimiento de los gastos financieros. En consecuencia, se declara la nulidad absoluta parcial por ser lesiva a los intereses públicos, fiscales y económicos del Estado, de la resolución número TFA-114 dictada por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo de las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo del 2012, únicamente en cuanto dispone aceptar como gastos necesarios, útiles y pertinentes para la generación de rentas gravables, los porcentajes de 23.20% para 1999, 29.46% para el 2000, 25.28% para el 2001, 36.54% para el 2002, 29.55% para el 2003, 32.64% para el 2004 y 35.87% para el 2005, por concepto de “gastos financieros intereses” por la captación de recursos para constituir reservas de liquidez a favor del Banco BCT, S.A. (ver en sentido similar, las sentencias 95-2019-V de las 10:30 horas del 18 de noviembre del 2019; 103-2019-V de las 13:30 horas del 10 de diciembre del 2019; y 44-2019-IV de las 08:27 horas del 06 de junio del 2019, todas del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda).

VIo.- SOBRE LAS RENTAS OBTENIDAS POR OPERACIONES E INVERSIONES EFECTUADAS CON EMPRESAS DEL EXTERIOR. En primer lugar, lo que es objeto de discusión es la territorialidad de los ingresos. Al respecto, el artículo 1 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, indica que están sujetos al impuesto las rentas, ingresos o beneficios de fuente costarricense, los provenientes de servicios prestados, bienes situados, o capitales utilizados en el territorio nacional, que se obtengan durante el período fiscal de acuerdo con las disposiciones de la ley. Lleva razón la representante del Estado en que este es un aspecto que ha sido tratado por las sentencias dictadas en esta jurisdicción, así como por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en las sentencias señaladas en su escrito de interposición de la demanda, concretamente en la resolución 671-F-S1-2010 de las nueve horas diez minutos del veinte de mayo de dos mil diez, cuando señala que para definir la territorialidad han de valorarse las circunstancias en las que se originan los ingresos. En ese sentido, dicha Sala ha considerado que "... conforme a lo que será expuesto, el vicio directo que acusa no se advierte; de ahí que los argumentos esbozados no puedan ser de recibo. Según lo indicado por el impugnante, el canon 1 de la LIR, fue indebidamente aplicado o erróneamente interpretado por el Tribunal; dado que se interpretó que las operaciones “ overnight”, tienen naturaleza territorial y por ende resultan ser objeto de imposición tributaria. La norma en cuestión en lo de interés expresa “… ARTÍCULO 1º.- Impuesto que comprende la ley, hecho generador y materia imponible. Se establece un impuesto sobre las utilidades de las empresas y de las personas físicas que desarrollen actividades lucrativas. El hecho generador del impuesto sobre las utilidades referidas en el párrafo anterior, es la percepción de rentas en dinero o en especie, continuas u ocasionales, provenientes de cualquier fuente costarricense. Este impuesto también grava los ingresos, continuos o eventuales de fuente costarricense, percibidos o devengados por personas físicas o jurídicas domiciliadas en el país…” De dicha norma puede concluirse que Costa Rica tiene un sistema tributario territorial y de donde se impone un elemento objetivo respecto a las actividades sujetas a dicho gravamen impositivo, a saber, el principio de territorialidad. De acuerdo con ese principio, para que la renta sea gravada, ésta debe generarse en suelo nacional; lo importante es que el servicio prestado, el bien situado o el capital utilizado tenga su génesis en el país. Ahora bien, para determinar si las utilidades deben ser gravadas de acuerdo con ese elemento de territorialidad citado; ha dicho reiteradamente este órgano decisor, que resulta menester tomar en consideración el lugar donde se origina esa renta, utilizando para ello el concepto de fuente costarricense. Debe entenderse por rentas, los ingresos o beneficios de fuente costarricense, los provenientes de servicios prestados, bienes situados o capitales utilizados en el territorio nacional. En este sentido, puede verse el fallo no. 617-2010 de las 9 horas 10 minutos del 20 de mayo de 2010 y el no. 945 de 10 horas del 7 de diciembre de 2005. (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Res: 000326-A-S1-2017, de las diez horas cincuenta y cinco minutos del veintitrés de marzo de dos mil diecisiete. El resaltado no corresponde al original). Por su parte, en la sentencia número 94-2009 dictada por la Sección VII de este Tribunal a las catorce horas del treinta de setiembre de dos mil nueve, se estimó que: "El principio de territorialidad no se encuentra limitado a una referencia meramente espacial, sino que abarca todos aquellos supuestos en que la actividad realizada por el contribuyente genere una renta vinculada de manera directa a la estructura o fuente económica de la cual se deriva, es decir, el territorio y la estructura económica costarricense." En consecuencia, no se trata entonces de que por la sola circunstancia de que haya un ingreso producido en el exterior, opera la exoneración del mismo en forma automática, por aplicación de la regla de la extraterritorialidad, sino que por el contrario, deben de analizarse las condiciones que rodean el asunto. A partir de lo anterior, este Tribunal considera que efectivamente tal y como lo determinó la Administración Tributaria en las resoluciones DT10R-058-08 de las 12:00 horas del 30 de abril del 2008; AU10R-076-08 de lasa 12:00 horas del 03 de junio del 2008, ambas dictadas por la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes de la Dirección General del Tributación y TFA-114-2012 de las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo del 2012, debe entenderse como gravado aquellas rentas que se deriven de operaciones realizadas con capital proveniente de fuente costarricenses como se da en este caso, no interpretando de manera abusiva el criterio de territorialidad que contemplan tanto la Ley de Impuesto Sobre la Renta como su reglamento, todo lo contrario extrayéndose este criterio de la literalidad de la norma que nos habla de las rentas producto de fuente costarricense. Más aún, cuando se tiene por no demostrado que los ingresos declaradas como no gravables y que fueron consideradas por la Administración Tributaria dentro del proceso determinativo como gravables, no fueran producto de fuente costarricense y del giro habitual del Banco, dentro del territorio nacional (considerando II aparte a de esta sentencia). En razón de lo anterior, debe declararse lesivo a los intereses del Estado el criterio desarrollado por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo en el considerando VI y en la parte dispositiva relacionada con ese aspecto en la resolución número 114-2012 de las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo del 2012 en cuanto dispuso: "...Se revoca la resolución recurrida en cuanto a los ajustes: (…) B) INGRESOS GRAVABLES DECLARADOS COMO NO GRAVABLES, (Rentas por intereses obtenidas por operaciones e inversiones efectuadas con empresas del exterior)…” (ver en sentido similar, las sentencias número 95-2019-V de las 10:30 horas del 18 de noviembre del 2019; 103-2019-V de las 13:30 horas del 10 de diciembre del 2019; 77-2019-VIII de las 08:00 horas del 04 de setiembre del 2019, todas del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda).

VIIo.- RESPECTO AL PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO PLANTEADO POR EL BANCO BCT Y LA INAPLICABILIDAD DE LA DENOMINADA METODOLOGÍA Nombre67376 PROMOVIDA POR LA ASOCIACIÓN BANCARIA COSTARRICENSE. Con relación a la validez del procedimiento seguido por la Asociación Bancaria Costarricense para lograr la aprobación de la metodología denominada Nombre67376 y la posibilidad de que la misma vincule al Banco BCT, este órgano colegiado comparte el criterio contenido en la sentencia número 77-2019 de las 08:00 horas del 04 de setiembre del 2019, dictada por la Sección Octava del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. En ese sentido, es menester definir en primer lugar, lo que se entiende por interesado, siendo el criterio de este Tribunal que partiendo del artículo 15 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos, sería el sujeto pasivo del impuesto quien tendría que hacer la petición para vincularse tanto él como la Administración al resultado de la misma, ya que la mencionada norma es la que define quienes son los sujetos que intervienen en la relación tributaria, que serían el activo, sea el ente u órgano acreedor del tributo y el pasivo, que sería la persona obligada al cumplimiento de las prestaciones tributarias, sea en calidad de contribuyente o de responsable. Ahora bien, sin perjuicio de que en la especie se tiene por acreditado que el Banco BCT forma parte de la Asociación Bancaria Costarricense (ABC) (folio 170 del expediente judicial), también lo es, que aun cuando la Nombre67376 pudiera deducir un interés mediato en el asunto, no es sujeto de la obligación tributaria en cuestión, por lo que no le asistiría legitimación para la petición planteada ante la SUGEF y la DGT, a fin de que se autorizara la aplicación de la metodología para el cálculo del gasto financiero no deducible, el gasto administrativo no deducible y gasto por diferencial cambiario no deducible. Por otra parte, aun partiendo del supuesto de que la Nombre67376 estuviera legitimada y de que el Banco BCT forme parte de la misma, de acuerdo con el mismo texto del artículo 102 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, para que un asunto de tanta trascendencia, como la utilización de la metodología de marras, tuviera -en principio- un efecto que vinculara a la Administración y otorgara a su vez, una situación favorable y consolidada a favor del contribuyente, sería a través de la consulta del artículo 119 de la CNPT, según lo indicado por la misma norma (102 del CNPT). A estos efectos, coincide el Tribunal con lo indicado por la Contraloría General de la República (CGR) en el informe DFOE-IP-06-2005, respecto de la necesidad de la consulta, así como de lo resuelto por la Sección VI de este Tribunal, en la sentencia 127-2013-VI, de catorce horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del veintiuno de octubre del 2013, en la que se establece: “…IV.- Sobre la figura de la consulta tributaria. El tema de las características, naturaleza jurídica y alcances de la consulta tributaria, desde un plano genérico, ya fue sometido a conocimiento de este Tribunal y objeto de análisis en un caso similar al presente, que dio pie a la sentencia número 102-2012-VI de las 16 horas 20 minutos del 04 de junio del 2012, emitida por esta misma Sección VI. Tal postura, se asume por ende como presupuesto de base para el análisis del presente caso. En lo atinente a la consulta tributaria, cabe señalar lo que de seguido se expone. En el ámbito de las relaciones jurídico tributarias que se generan entre la Administración Tributaria (Fisco) y los sujetos pasivos (o responsables), como derivación de la certeza y seguridad jurídica, a efectos de dar una mayor claridad y precisión a los alcances y proyección al contenido de los deberes formales y materiales de los sujetos obligados, el ordenamiento jurídico confiere una serie de potestades al Fisco que buscan precisamente delimitar los alcances de las normas que regulan las relaciones obligaciones señaladas. En esta línea, parte de esas competencias se direccionan a dictar normas generales que faciliten la aplicación correcta de las normas tributarias. Se trata de una competencia genérica contenida en el canon 99 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios y que posibilita, de manera oficiosa, la emisión de directrices interpretativas o criterios institucionales que buscan, se insiste, delimitar la forma en que determinada norma tributaria ha de ser entendida en contextos generales. Con todo, las mismas razones señaladas posibilitan que los sujetos pasivos puedan requerir a las Administraciones Tributarias formal consulta sobre el criterio que ha de aplicarse a determinada situación tributaria, específica y concreta, en la que tenga algún grado de duda razonable respecto de la manera en que ha de procederse a efectos de cumplir con sus obligaciones formales o materiales. El numeral 119 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios regula los elementos mínimos y marco procedimental de este instituto. En la especie, se hará referencia a la versión de esa norma previo a la reforma realizada por la Ley No. 9069, dado que se trata de la que resultaba aplicable a esa fecha de consulta (14 de marzo del 2011), y de conformidad con lo estatuido por el ordinal 9 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios. Nótese que la Ley No. 9069, que reformó entre múltiples normas el canon 119 pre citado, rige a partir de su publicación, lo que se concretó en el Alcance No. 143 al Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 188 del 28 de septiembre del 2012. Ergo, las reglas que esa nueva legislación impone, no pueden ser aplicadas al presente caso, ya que la consulta es de fecha previa a ese rigor de vigencia. Realizada esa aclaración, merece indicar, la versión anterior (aplicable al caso) de ese mandato indicaba: Firmado digital de: “Artículo 119.- Consultas. Quien tenga un interés personal y directo, puede Consultar a la Administración Tributaria sobre la aplicación del derecho a una situación de hecho concreta y actual. A ese efecto, el consultante debe exponer en escrito especial, con claridad y precisión, todos los elementos constitutivos de la situación que motiva la consulta y puede así mismo expresa su opinión fundada. La nota o escrito en que se formule la consulta debe ser presentada con copia fiel de su original, la que debidamente sellada y con indicación de la fecha de su presentación, debe ser devuelta como constancia al interesado./ La consulta presentada antes del vencimiento del plazo para la presentación de la declaración jurada o, en su caso, dentro del término para el pago del tributo, exime de sanciones al consultante por el excedente que resulte de la resolución administrativa, si es pagado dicho excedente dentro de los treinta días siguientes a la fecha de notificada la respectiva resolución. Para evacuar la consulta la Administración dispone de cuarenta y cinco días y, si al vencimiento de dicho término no dicta resolución, se debe entender aprobada la interpretación del consultante, si éste la ha expuesto. / Dicha aprobación se limita al caso concreto consultado y no afecta a los hechos generadores que ocurran con posterioridad a la notificación de la resolución que en el futuro dicte la Administración. / Es nula la consulta evacuada sobre la base de datos inexactos proporcionados por el consultante.” Por su parte, el procedimiento o trámite de consulta tributaria se regula además en la sección II del capítulo VI del Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29264-H -RGGFRT-. Vista aquella norma (art. 119 CNPT), es criterio de este Tribunal, la finalidad de la figura de la consulta tributaria es delimitar la interpretación y aplicación de una determinada norma tributaria a un caso concreto, según el sentido que le otorgue el Fisco, a fin de conceder al sujeto pasivo un criterio respecto del tema consultado, que le otorgue seguridad en su proceder. Ahora, desde esa arista de exposición, lo resuelto dentro de trámite de consulta genera un criterio al que debe someterse el sujeto pasivo, en la medida que fija la manera en que su situación tributaria ha de ser entendida conforme a las normas que la regulan. Se trata de un instituto que permite al sujeto pasivo requerir a la Administración sobre un pronunciamiento previo en cuento a la comprensión y/o alcances de una norma tributaria al caso concreto. En este sentido puede verse, a modo de referencia lo expuesto por la Sección II de este Tribunal, en el fallo No. 225 de las 10 horas del 23 de junio del 2009. Con todo, cabe indicar, la consulta tributaria constituye un mecanismo que permite a los sujetos pasivos contar con claridad y certidumbre en los actos que deban adoptar frente a los deberes formales y materiales de las obligaciones tributarias. El sistema tributario costarricense se fundamenta en un esquema de auto-determinación, auto-declaración y autoliquidación, lo que supone que es el sujeto pasivo quien en primera instancia delimita el contenido y cuantía de sus obligaciones fiscales, las declara y las cancela, y luego de ello, emergen las potestades de fiscalización de las Administraciones Tributarias. Dependiendo del correcto ejercicio de los deberes fiscales realizar determinaciones que incrementen la base imponible, incluyan rentas o actividades no declaradas por el sujeto pasivo y eventualmente, no solo ajustar el deber contributivo, sino además, ejercitar las potestades sancionatorias externas, sea por la concurrencia de infracciones administativas o delitos tributarios. De esa manera, el trámite de consulta permite al contribuyente contar con un pronunciamiento de la Administración Fiscal que a no dudarlo, le indica la manera en que en el caso concreto consultado, deberá actuar para proceder conforme a sus deberes tributarios. Luego, de actuar de manera contraria pese a que mediante ese trámite le fue indicado cosa diversa, se evidencia con mayor rigor el incumplimiento fiscal, o bien, si actúa en los términos que la Administración le indicó, ese cumplimiento, al estar amparado al criterio del órgano o instancia consultada, será de buena fe e impregnado de confianza legítima, por lo cual, resulta inviable que con ulterioridad se le reprochen eventuales desatenciones fiscales, siempre que las condiciones fácticas de la declaración, sean las mismas que las sometidas a consulta, pues de ser variables o diferentes, aquel criterio no será aplicable. Esto ya que la decisión pública atendería a la consulta de situaciones concretas, de manera que al ponderar los presupuestos fáctico-jurídicos a, b y c, se emite la decisión X. Luego, si la situación efectiva que da base a la declaración es disímil a la consultada (v.gr. b, c y d), la decisión X, no resulta ya aplicable, por lo que en ese caso, ese criterio ya no ampararía al sujeto pasivo. Lo opuesto llevaría a un abuso de derecho y a extender por la vía de la conjetura, lo resuelto en cuanto a una consulta concreta, a presupuestos condicionantes que no estaban presentes al momento de ser emitido el efecto condicionado, externado vía consultiva. Desde este plano, si bien puede decirse que lo resuelto en la consulta no genera un derecho subjetivo perfeccionado, pues las condiciones entre la consulta y la declaración pueden variar, ciertamente, a juicio de este órgano colegiado, si genera un efecto de certeza a favor (o en contra) del consultante, que luego no puede ser desconocido, y que lleva a que si la declaración o determinación se realiza al tenor de lo evacuado en la consulta, no sea procedente requerir comportamientos diversos a los orientados por la misma Administración Tributaria. Lo contrario llevaría al sin sentido de que pese a contar con una pauta interpretativa formalmente emitida por autoridad competente, respecto de situaciones concretas, la Administración puede desconocerla e imponer no solamente aumentos en la cuota tributaria al contribuyente, sino eventualmente aplicarle intereses, multas y sanciones administrativas, llevando en esa hipótesis, a una arbitrariedad e inequidad en perjuicio del administrado, quien en esa línea, ajustó su comportamiento a lo que en su momento le indicó el Fisco. Se insiste, ello siempre que las condiciones consulta-declaración fuesen las mismas. Desconocer lo resuelto en un trámite de consulta tributaria, vaciaría la finalidad misma de ese trámite y llevaría al ilógico de contar con una opinión administrativa que en definitiva, no genera certeza, pues puede ser luego desconocida, incluso, en cuanto a las situaciones que fueron consultadas. De ahí que una de las exigencias de la consulta tributaria sea la actualidad de la incógnita y su relación con un período fiscal y tributo determinado, lo que se abordará infra. V.- Ahora bien, este tipo de gestiones no deben ser confundidas con las simples peticiones administrativas, reguladas en el precepto 102 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios. Sus exigencias son diversas dada la especialidad y especificidad de lo peticionado, así como son distintos los plazos con que cuenta la Administración. Interesa entonces precisar en cuanto a los requisitos de las consultas tributarias. La norma 119 del CNPT, fija los siguientes requisitos: a) Existencia de un interés personal y directo del contribuyente frente a una duda; b) aplicación a una situación de hecho concreta y de actualidad; c) la formulación de la consulta en un escrito claro y preciso, en el que se expresen los motivos de la situación que origina la consulta, así como el criterio jurídico-interpretativo del consultante respecto de la situación concreta expuesta; y d) presentación del original y copia fiel, debidamente sellada y con indicación de la fecha de su presentación. Por su parte, el canon 124 del RGGFRT establece las siguientes exigencias: a) Plantear la situación de hecho concreta y actual, sobre datos exactos; b) Exponer con claridad y precisión todos los elementos constitutivos de la situación que motiva la consulta; c) Indicar el nombre del o los interesados en el caso; d) Indicar el o los tributos afectados, con sus respectivos períodos fiscales; e)Expresar la opinión fundada del consultante; f) El escrito en que se formule la consulta debe ser presentado con copia fiel de su original, el funcionario de la Administración Tributaria que la reciba, deberá acusar recibo de la misma estampando el sello de la oficina indicación de la fecha de presentación y su nombre y apellidos, tanto en la copia que deberá devolver al interesado como en su original. Por otro lado, la Administración cuenta con un plazo de 45 días hábiles para resolver la consulta, los que, de ser inadvertidos, dan paso a la aplicación de la figura del silencio positivo, en virtud del cual, la interpretación dada por el consultante, se entiende por aprobada, siempre que tal criterio haya sido expuesto. Lo anterior siempre que los datos presentados fueran verdaderos y con la advertencia que tal aspecto se limita al caso concreto, sin que pueda afectar hechos ulteriores. Con todo, cabe indicar, la existencia previa de pronunciamientos, directrices interpretativas o similares de la Administración Fiscal que guarden algún grado de relación con el objeto de la consulta, no impide, en todos los casos la posibilidad de formular este tipo de trámite, pues bien pueden generarse dudas respecto de si esas disposiciones resultan aplicables a plenitud a la situación de hecho concreta consultada. La potestad de atender las consultas de esta índole dimana de la función normativa de la Administración Tributaria, que a decir del numeral 118 del RGGFRT tiene por objeto velar por la correcta y uniforme aplicación de las normas tributarias que regulan los tributos administrados por la Dirección General de Tributación” (el resaltado no es del original). A partir de lo expuesto, coincide este Tribunal con el criterio esbozado por la representación estatal en cuanto a que el oficio DGT-1659-03 del 02 de diciembre del 2003 (folio 86 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"), es una simple opinión, y que el procedimiento para obtener -en principio- las consecuencias jurídicas de confianza legítima, buena fe, seguridad jurídica e intangibilidad de los actos propios, debió seguirse el procedimiento establecido en el numeral 119 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, lo cual no desconocía la representación del Banco ya que por la naturaleza especial de su giro comercial los mismos cuentan con una asesoría técnica constante y resulta poco creíble que en un tema tan sensible como éste, no se hiciera asesorar por especialistas. Por ende, tanto por la falta de legitimación de la ABC, como por la forma escogida para hacerlo, no existió un acto capaz de vincular a la Administración Tributaria con el Banco, en cuanto al uso de la metodología, ni que lo autorizara para su utilización tanto en el período que se iba a declarar, ni para rectificar períodos anteriores. En este punto es menester resaltar, que la misma SUGEF expresamente señaló que la metodología no fue autorizada para efectos tributarios sino contables -ver carpeta número 6 que contiene el Informe DFOE-IP-06-2005; legajo de prueba del "informe DFOE-IP-06-2005-, por lo que con independencia de que siga o no vigente, no lo está para esos efectos; así como también, que no existe un acto de la Administración Tributaria que haya autorizado expresa y directamente al Banco BCT a fin de que utilizara esa metodología y de que rectificara las declaraciones de períodos fiscales anteriores al año 2003 en los términos del numeral 119 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios -vigente para esa fecha- (no se desprende de los folios 82 a 86 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"; ver carpeta número 6 que contiene el Informe DFOE-IP-06-2005; legajo de prueba del "informe DFOE-IP-06-2005), por lo que la fiscalización realizada y que concluye en la determinación impugnada, procedía no solo por el antecedente del informe de la Contraloría General de la República (CGR), sino también, por las obligaciones impuestas por el ordenamiento jurídico en beneficio de una adecuada recaudación de los tributos. En ese sentido, cabe resaltar que la CGR indicó reparos muy serios con relación a la metodología ABC, pues provocó que se aplicara una deducción más alta de los gastos deducibles, lo que llevó a una reducción del impuesto, aspecto que pudo haber sido debatido tanto en el procedimiento determinativo, como en esta sede, pero que no se realizó, pese a que se tuvo la oportunidad de su defensa con posibilidad de aportar la prueba respectiva. También, al considerarse que no se planteó la petición por la persona legitimada, así como que no se hizo por la forma prevista en el ordenamiento jurídico, se hace innecesario hacer referencia al contenido del oficio DGT 1659-03, en cuanto a que si podía deducirse del mismo una autorización, pues como se indicó el Banco BCT estaba en la posibilidad y le era exigible además saber que para que se autorizara el uso de esa metodología, debía de recurrir a la consulta prevista en el artículo 119 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, situación que además desvirtúa el principio de buena fe, así como la aplicación del principio de confianza legítima. Agrega este órgano colegiado que además el acto administrativo que autorice una determinada conducta debe ser expreso, situación que solo podía lograrse a través de la consulta, por lo que las interpretaciones gramaticales no son de recibo, respecto del oficio DGT 1659-03 del Director General de Tributación. Tampoco existe un derecho subjetivo declarado a favor del Banco BCT, por lo que no pueden aducirse los principios de intangibilidad de los actos propios e irretroactividad, ni la obligación de acudir al proceso de lesividad o al procedimiento de nulidad evidente y manifiesta previsto en la Ley General de la Administración Pública, porque una vez más se reitera que la Administración Tributaria no autorizó concretamente a la entidad bancaria al uso de la metodología, ni puede deducirse un derecho subjetivo de la actuación de una Asociación que no es contribuyente, a pesar de que el Banco BCT sea miembro activo de dicha asociación. Por otra parte, el hecho de que la Dirección General de Hacienda, mediante resoluciones número DGH-042-2012 de las 11:30 horas del 12 de diciembre del 2012; DGH-029-2013 de las 15:33 horas del 23 de agosto del 2013; DGH-030-2013 de las 15:35 horas del 23 de agosto del 2013 y DGH-031-2013 de las 15:43 horas del 23 de agosto del 2013, todas dictadas por la Dirección General de Hacienda (imágenes 123 a 149 del expediente judicial), haya dispuesto la condonación de intereses a favor del Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, Banco BAC San José, Banco Scotiabank de Costa Rica, S.A. y Banca Promérica, S.A., generados por las determinaciones de oficio efectuadas por la Subgerencia de Fiscalización de la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes respecto de los períodos fiscales comprendidos entre 1992 a 2005, no constituye a juicio de este Tribunal una prueba idónea de que se lesionó en perjuicio del Banco BCT, el principio de confianza legítima. Ello por cuanto, si bien es cierto en dichas resoluciones se parte de que existe “…un error de la Administración que a la vez generó que el contribuyente fuera inducido a cometer errores al momento de determinar sus obligaciones…”; también lo es, que en las mismas conductas formales se aducen dos razones que prueban lo contrario, a saber: 1) “…Que el contribuyente amparado en el criterio dado en el oficio procedió a rectificar las declaraciones del impuesto sobre la renta de los períodos fiscales 1999, 2000, 2001 y 2002 y presentó declaraciones de los períodos fiscales 2003, 2004 y 2005, utilizando para tales efectos la citada metodología…” ( el resaltado no es del original). Cabe recordar, que la misma SUGEF expresamente señaló que la metodología no fue autorizada para efectos tributarios sino contables y que no existe un acto de la Administración Tributaria que haya autorizado expresamente al Banco BCT para su utilización y para la rectificación de las declaraciones de períodos fiscales anteriores al año 2003 en los términos del numeral 119 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios -vigente para esa fecha-. 2) “…Posteriormente, mediante actuaciones fiscalizadoras de la Administración, se determinan diferencias en contra del contribuyente que se originaron en que el contribuyente realizó sus declaraciones al amparo del oficio cuestionado y determinar la Administración que lo correcto era realizarlo de conformidad con la Ley del impuesto sobre la renta (artículos 7 de la Ley y 11 del Reglamento). Además se ha logrado demostrar por parte de la misma Administración Tributaria que existe una contradicción entre el contenido de la normativa indicada y el oficio 1659-03, debiendo privar la normativa de mayor jerarquía…” (el resaltado no es del original). En ese sentido, se insiste -tal y como se consideró supra- que el Banco BCT no estaba en la posibilidad de alegar que desconocía que para la posible autorización del uso de la metodología ABC, debía de recurrir a la consulta prevista en el artículo 119 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios (vigente en ese momento), situación que desvirtúa el principio de buena fe. Por último y sin perjuicio de lo antes expuesto, es menester indicar que conforme al principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria (artículo 5 inciso a del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, vigente en ese momento), sólo mediante ley formal y material se puede determinar -entre otros aspectos- las bases de cálculo del tributo, razón por la cual, ni la SUGEF ni la DGT hubieran podido autorizar válidamente el empleo de la metodología para efectos tributarios, pues ello hubiera implicado -en principio- una modificación de la base de cálculo del impuesto sobre la renta prevista en el numeral 7 de la ley que regula ese tributo, en aquellos casos de sujetos pasivos que generen indistintamente ingresos gravados y no gravados con ese impuesto -como sucede en la especie-. En consecuencia, la aplicación de lo dispuesto en los numerales 10 y 12 de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional y 129 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica, con relación al alcance de las potestades allí otorgadas a la SUGEF, debe realizarse en función del principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria (ver en sentido similar, las sentencias 95-2019-V de las 10:30 horas del 18 de noviembre del 2019; 103-2019-V de las 13:30 horas del 10 de diciembre del 2019; 77-2019-VIII de las 08:00 horas del 04 de setiembre del 2019, todas del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda).

VIIIo.- EN CUANTO A LA PRESUNTA INOBSERVANCIA DE LAS DISPOSICIONES CONTENIDAS EN EL DFOE-IP-06-2005 DE LA CONTRALORÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA. Considera este Tribunal que en virtud de que el Informe DFOE-IP-06-2005, tiene una enorme trascendencia en este asunto, es necesario referenciarlo, indicando en primer lugar, las observaciones que se hacen respecto del uso de la metodología ABC: "…En resumen, se ha mostrado que la Metodología no asocia los gastos no deducibles a fuentes significativas de ingresos no gravables, sino a un llamado "exceso de liquidez" definido con recurso a elementos de la normativa financiera, pero no enteramente ajustado a ella. Puesto que tal "exceso de liquidez" se determina con exclusión de títulos valores a más de un mes, y subsiguientemente se multiplica por una tasa de costo financiero sensiblemente reducida, el resultado es una subestimación sistemática de los gastos financieros no deducibles y, por derivación, de los gastos administrativos y por diferencial cambiario no deducibles. De tal forma que los gastos no deducibles que resultan de la Metodología, en el mejor de los casos no podrían entenderse como los únicamente no deducibles, ni sería admisible considerar deducibles a todos los restantes. Hacerlo así, por lo ya analizado y comentado, conformaría una subestimación de gastos no deducibles, y por lo consiguiente una sobreestimación de los gastos deducibles. La renta neta, en su caso, estaría siendo subestimada. 2.4.3. RECTIFICACIONES CON BASE EN LA METODOLOGÍA. “En el cuadro 1 se muestran los importes de la Renta neta, determinados por los bancos públicos, sin rectificar y rectificados producto de la aplicación de la Metodología correspondientes a los períodos fiscales del 2000 al 2002. Las pérdidas fiscales (rentas netas negativas) de los bancos se incrementaron, considerablemente, en tales períodos (con excepción de un banco). Es así como el importe total de las pérdidas fiscales de los referidos bancos aumentó en aproximadamente, ¢30.000 millones anualmente, en promedio. El resultado fiscal negativo de tales establecimientos responde a criterios propios de su declaración del impuesto, no a su realidad económica, caracterizada por utilidades positivas". En el cuadro 2 se señalan los montos totales de los Gastos deducibles, determinados por los citados bancos, antes y después de que efectuaran las respectivas rectificaciones, en virtud de la aplicación de la Metodología en los citados períodos. Era de esperar que, por el contenido de las fiscalizaciones efectuadas por la DGT y de las resoluciones dictadas por el TFA, sobre esta materia, que los gastos deducibles debieran estar sujetos a límites, y la aplicación de la Metodología fuera concordante con esa tendencia, no obstante en el estudio realizado se determinó que en algunos casos los gastos deducibles muestran un aumento, y en otros la disminución es leve, en concordancia con lo comentado en el aparte 2.4.2. La suma global de gastos deducidos por los bancos públicos, según se observa, aumentó. (...) De acuerdo a lo expuesto en este aparte 2.4, y en el marco de las competencias de la Administración Tributaria, relativas a la gestión, recaudación, fiscalización tributaria y de acceso a la información de carácter tributario establecidas en el ordenamiento jurídico, y en virtud de que la tesis acogida por el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, ha sido la aplicación del criterio de proporcionalidad establecido en la Ley del Impuesto sobre la renta y su Reglamento (con la excepción de la deducción del 25% de los gastos financieros atribuibles a los ingresos no gravables), es necesario que dicha Administración profundice sobre esta situación, y determine en definitiva, si la aplicación de la Metodología es concordante con la base de cálculo del impuesto establecido en la Ley del Impuesto sobre la renta 7092. (...) " ...luego de la aprobación de la metodología por parte de la Dirección General, sólo se ha fiscalizado un caso, el cual pertenece al Sector Público. En la revisión efectuada a dicho banco una de nuestras áreas de riesgo, fue la aplicación de la metodología../ En la revisión de este caso verificamos que la aplicación de esta metodología conllevó a que el contribuyente se aplicara una deducción más alta de gastos deducibles. Además hay un estudio realizado por los auditores, donde emiten su criterio sobre la metodología, sin embargo, se considera que este estudio no ha sido avalado por la Dirección General ... dicho estudio va a ser revisado por las Áreas de Normativa y de Fiscalización, para luego proceder su oficialización./ No omito manifestarle que esta Administración, no ha realizado ninguna comparación del efecto recaudatorio a partir de la aprobación de la metodología, y para llevar eso a cabo, se requeriría realizar fiscalización a cada uno de los Bancos". De acuerdo con lo expuesto anteriormente, también resulta necesario que, conforme a sus facultades y de acuerdo con los respectivos programas y procedimientos de fiscalización, se efectúen las actuaciones de fiscalización sobre las entidades bancarias que se estimen pertinentes". (El destacado no es del original). Ahora bien, estima este órgano colegiado que de igual importancia, es el análisis que hace la CGR, respecto del concurso de competencias y de las actuaciones tanto de la SUGEF, como de la DGT, en el contexto de la emisión del oficio DGT-1659-03 del 02 de diciembre del 2003, en el siguiente sentido: "…Sin perjuicio de lo anteriormente indicado (que sería lo transcrito en cuanto a que se instauren las actuaciones de fiscalización), de seguido se procederá al análisis de otros aspectos relacionados son los trámites efectuados ante SUGEF Y DGT. 2.5 ALGUNOS ASPECTOS JURÍDICOS RELACIONADOS CON LOS TRÁMITES REALIZADOS ANTE LA SUGEF Y LA DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE TRIBUTACIÓN. En el estudio realizado se determinó lo siguiente: a) Sin perjuicio de lo anteriormente señalado sobre la reserva de ley en materia tributaria, con respecto al trámite realizado por la SUGEF, el párrafo 1° del numeral 119, de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central 7558, del 3 de noviembre de 1995, se define el ámbito subjetivo u orgánico de la competencia de esa entidad: "Con el propósito de velar por la estabilidad, la solidez y el eficiente funcionamiento del sistema financiero nacional, la Superintendencia ejercerá sus actividades de supervisión y fiscalización sobre todas las entidades que lleven a cabo intermediación financiera, con estricto apego a las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias, velando porque cumplan con los preceptos que les sean aplicables.../ En relación con la operación propia de las entidades fiscalizadas y el registro de sus transacciones, la Superintendencia estará facultada para dictar las normas generales que sean necesarias para el establecimiento de sanas prácticas bancarias, todo en salvaguarda del interés de la colectividad....( ) Las normas generales y directrices dictadas por la Superintendencia serán de observancia obligatoria para las entidades fiscalizadas". A las indicadas potestades de la SUGEF se suman atribuciones normativas y directivas ya que ésta puede dictar normas generales o directrices a los entes fiscalizados. En este sentido, el numeral 129 de la misma Ley señala: "Aceptación de criterios de la Superintendencia. Los criterios que establezca la Superintendencia, en cuanto al registro contable de las operaciones de las entidades fiscalizadas, la confección y presentación de sus estados financieros, sus manuales de cuentas, la valuación de sus activos financieros y la clasificación y calificación de sus activos, deberán ser aceptados para efectos tributarios". Por otra parte, de acuerdo con nuestro ordenamiento jurídico, la Administración Tributaria es el órgano administrativo encargado de percibir y fiscalizar los tributos y dictar normas generales para la aplicación correcta de las leyes tributarias. Al respecto el artículo 99 de la Ley 4755, de 29 del abril de 1971, Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios señala: "Concepto y facultades Se entiende por Administración Tributaria el órgano administrativo encargado de percibir y fiscalizar los tributos, se trate del Fisco o de otros entes públicos que sean sujetos activos, conforme a los artículos 11 y 14 del presente Código../ Dicho órgano puede dictar normas generales para los efectos de la aplicación correcta de las leyes tributarias, dentro de los limites fijados por las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias pertinentes. Tratándose de la Administración Tributaria del Ministerio de Hacienda, cuando el presente Código otorga una potestad o facultad a la Dirección General de Tributación, se entenderá que también es aplicable a la Dirección General de Aduanas y a la Dirección General de Hacienda, en sus ámbitos de competencia. " (*) El presente artículo ha sido reformado mediante Ley No. 7900 de 3de agosto de 1999. LG# 159 de 1 7 de agosto de 1999." Por su parte, en relación con la competencia normativa de la Administración Tributaria, señalada en el anterior numeral, el artículo 100 del mismo Código establece: “Artículo 100.- Revisión por el superior jerárquico. / Las normas a que se refiere el artículo precedente pueden ser modificadas o derogadas por el superior jerárquico, por medio de resoluciones razonadas". Respecto a lo expuesto anteriormente en este documento, como resultado de la petición de la Asociación, el CONASSIF a solicitud de la SUGEF acordó modificar el plan de cuentas para las entidades bancarias del Sistema Bancario Nacional, para efectos del registro contable de ingresos no gravables y gastos no deducibles. Sin embargo, respecto de los oficios emitidos por la SUGEF sobre este caso, esa superintendencia señaló, a esta Contraloría, que: "Dichos oficios no constituían una autorización para el registro ni para el cálculo de los gastos no deducibles de los bancos del Sistema Bancario Nacional para efectos tributarios. Esta Superintendencia no cuenta con facultades legales que le permitan autorizar por la vía de la Asociación Bancaria Costarricense, a todas las entidades del Sistema Bancario Nacional sobre la aplicación de la metodología propuesta para el registro y cálculo de los gastos no deducibles, utilizados en el cálculo del impuesto sobre la renta.../ Ni esta Superintendencia, ni el Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero cuentan con competencia para autorizar metodologías y registros contables con fines tributarios../ Las notas SUGEF 4406-200309032, SUGEF-4338-200309032 y SUGEF 4796-200309032 presentan criterios que no son vinculantes a una solicitud de la ABC../ A la fecha, esta Superintendencia no ha autorizado a los bancos del Sistema Bancario Nacional efectuar ajustes basados en la aplicación de la metodología de marras para los períodos indicados, según la solicitud presentada por la ABC". b) No obstante la trascendencia de la referida petición que se formuló en relación con Metodología, ante la Dirección General de Tributación, respecto a los estudios que fundamentaron lo resuelto por la DGT, ésta indicó que: "...3. internamente, el Director General de Tributación nombrado a esa fecha, fue el encargado de analizar la propuesta y dar su visto bueno.../4. En nuestros registros no consta que a lo interno de la Administración se hayan realizado estudios técnicos ni financieros con respecto a esa metodología. Sin embargo esta Dirección General procederá a realizar los estudios necesarios para determinar si el método aplicado actualmente, basado en la metodología propuesta... se debe mantener o si se debe modificar. /...En nuestros registros no consta que se hayan realizado estudios previos o posteriores sobre los efectos o el impacto fiscal futuro de la aplicación de la metodología. Pero... esta Dirección General procederá a realizar los estudios necesarios para determinar si el método aplicado actualmente... se debe mantener o si se debe dejar sin efecto para volver al sistema según el cual se aplicaba la proporcionalidad/...En nuestros registros no consta que se hayan realizado estudios sobre las diferencias en la base imponible y el eventual menor impuesto a pagar. Con los estudios que se realizarán, también se va a valorar esta situación.. ". Dado lo anterior, en criterio de esta Contraloría, lo resuelto por la Dirección General de Tributación en ese entonces no se ajustó a la normativa jurídica correspondiente, por cuanto la trascendencia del asunto, y el cambio de criterio que implicaba tal resolución, de frente a las controversias tributarias previas, obligaban a la debida y expresa fundamentación o motivación, según lo establecido en el numeral 136 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, la cual señala: 'Serán motivados con mención, sucinta al menos, de sus fundamentos:.../ c) Los que se separen del criterio seguido en actuaciones precedentes o del dictamen de órganos consultivos" (...) c) En atención a una consulta de esta Contraloría, la DGT comunicó que sí resultaba procedente el trámite de la solicitud de la Asociación, en virtud de lo establecido en el artículo 102 del CNPT" (Ya consultante fundamentó la solicitud en este artículo), el cual señala: "El director General de la Administración Tributaria o los gerentes de las administraciones tributarias y de grandes contribuyentes en quienes él delegue, total o parcialmente, están obligados a resolver toda petición o recurso planteado por los interesados dentro de un plazo de dos meses, contado desde la fecha de presentación o interposición de una u otro. Por petición se debe entender la reclamación sobre un caso real, fundado en razones de legalidad.../" No obstante el criterio externado por la DGT sobre la competencia de la Administración para tramitar dicha solicitud, de acuerdo con el artículo 102 del Código de cita, la consulta prevista está reservada, desde el punto de vista de la legitimación ad causan activa, para quienes tengan un interés personal y directo (contribuyentes, sucesores, responsables, agentes de retención y percepción), respecto de la aplicación del derecho tributario a una situación de hecho concreta y actual. Con respecto a este tipo de situaciones, la DGT se ha manifestado en los siguientes términos: "Ambas normas citadas (se refiere a los numerales 102 y 119 del CNPT, son claras y versan sobre reclamaciones o peticiones del sujeto pasivo únicamente, por lo que de conformidad con esta disposición, el caso consultado, no encuadra dentro de las circunstancias que exige la normativa, debido a que quien realiza la petición o quien consulta no es el sujeto interesado, sino un profesional, que le presta sus servicios a la persona jurídica, tal y como apunta en su libelo: "un cliente" y éstas sólo proceden cuando son formuladas directamente por quien tenga interés personal en que se le aplique el derecho a la situación concreta y actual, debido que al evacuarla, su pronunciamiento tendría incidencia y repercusión en personas distintas a aquellas que han intervenido". Asimismo, esa dirección en oficio 0167, del 7 de febrero del 2001, aclara, respecto del tipo de gestión y competencia que regula el numeral 102 del Código, lo siguiente: "Retomando lo anterior, podemos establecer que cuando el párrafo primero del artículo 102, habla de petición, se está refiriendo a cualquier reclamo formulado sobre un caso real, y que se sustente en razones de legalidad, el cual debe ser resuelto dentro de un plazo de dos meses contados a partir de la interposición del mismo, de lo contrario, se tendrá por denegado, por lo que se podrá interponer contra ésta, los recursos correspondientes. " Por su parte, sobre este mismo tema, el TFA se ha pronunciado en los siguientes términos: "(...) El consultante debe poseer un interés personal y directo sobre la aplicación del derecho a una situación de hecho concreta y actual. En vista de lo anterior se estima que la llamada consulta por el recurrente no es tal, en los términos exigidos por aquella disposición legal, la Administración Tributaria, al evacuarla, su pronunciamiento tendría incidencia y repercusión en personas distintas a aquellas que han intervenido en la formulación de la consulta, sobre todo que no ha mediado autorización de los contribuyentes a los cuales se pretende aplican… De admitirse los razonamientos del interesado y la interpretación de los textos mencionados la eventual resolución que dictara la Administración Tributaria tendría efectos de alcance general lo cual evidentemente, no fue lo querido ni deseado por el legislador al exigir un interés personal y directo sobre una situación de hecho concreta y actual, pues de lo contrario, como en el caso de comentario el pronunciamiento que se vertiera alcanzaría a terceros, que no han sido partes en estas diligencias, desfigurándose el Instituto de la consulta (...)" Fallo N° 33, de las 8 hrs. del 22 de junio de 1993. Sala Primera. Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo. Por otra parte, sobre la comunicación de lo resuelto por la Dirección se indicó: "En el caso de la consulta planteada por la Asociación (consultante), ésta fue resuelta directamente por el Director General de ese momento, con base en las facultades que la ley le otorga. / La respuesta a la solicitud planteada, de acuerdo con el artículo 102 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, se notificó en el lugar señalado por la Asociación para tal efecto. El tema de comunicación a terceros por parte del solicitante, no es un asunto que esté dentro de la competencia de esta Dirección General…". En criterio de esta Contraloría, lo expuesto en el párrafo anterior, no sería concordante con lo dispuesto con el numeral 101 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, el cual señala: "Publicidad de las normas y jurisprudencia tributarias. Sin perjuicio de la publicidad de las leyes, reglamentaciones y demás disposiciones de carácter general dictadas por la Administración Tributaria en uso de sus facultades legales, la dependencia que tenga a su cargo la aplicación de los tributos debe dar a conocer de inmediato, por medio del Diario Oficial y de otros medios publicitarios adecuados a las circunstancias, las resoluciones o sentencias recaídas en casos particulares que a su juicio ofrezcan interés general, omitiendo las referencias que puedan lesionar intereses particulares o la garantía del carácter confidencial de las informaciones que instituye el artículo 112 de este Código". Finalmente, el artículo 142, inciso 2 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública establece respecto de la eficacia del acto administrativos:" 2. Para que produzca efecto hacía el pasado a favor del administrado se requerirá que desde la fecha señalada para el inicio de su efecto existan los motivos para su adopción, y que la retroacción no lesione derechos o intereses de terceros de buena fe". d) Las situaciones expuestas en los incisos a), b) y c) de este aparte 2.5 deberán ser analizadas por el Ministerio de Hacienda con el propósito de que se dimensionen sus efectos y se adopten las acciones que, eventualmente, procedan. Las acciones que se realicen, deberán coordinarse con la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras y efectuarse con el concurso de la Procuraduría General de la República, cuando corresponda, y conforme a sus competencias, y respecto de dichas acciones deberá observarse el debido proceso, respecto de las entidades financieras del Sistema Bancario Nacional, en lo que resulte pertinente. (...) 4. DISPOSICIONES 4.1 AL MINISTRO DE HACIENDA. a) Gestionar de inmediato las acciones pertinentes para que se determine, en definitiva, si la Metodología para el cálculo y registro de los gastos no deducibles, asociados a ingresos no gravables de las entidades bancarias del Sistema Bancario Nacional, sometida a conocimiento de la DGT y la SUGEF, es concordante con la base de cálculo del impuesto establecido en la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta 7092 y también, si a partir de las situaciones señaladas en relación con lo resuelto por estas últimas entidades, corresponde dejar sin efecto lo resuelto sobre la Metodología, y emitir cualquier otra resolución que, eventualmente resulte necesaria, con el propósito de que se dimensionen sus efectos y se adopten las acciones que procedan. Las acciones que se realicen deberán coordinarse con la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras y efectuarse con el concurso de la Procuraduría General de la República cuando corresponda y conforme a sus competencias, y respecto de dichas acciones deberá observarse el debido proceso respecto de las entidades financieras del Sistema Bancario Nacional, en lo que resulte pertinente. b) Realizar, en el marco de las competencias de la Administración Tributaria y de conformidad con los programas y procedimientos de fiscalización, y a la luz de lo expuesto en este informe, las actuaciones de fiscalización a las entidades bancarias del Sistema Bancario Nacional, según corresponda" (El destacado no es del original). A partir de la anterior transcripción parcial del Informe número DFOE-IP-06-2005 y aunado a que ni la Contraloría General de la República es parte de este proceso, ni que el accionante haya demostrado que dicho órgano contralor acusara de alguna forma el no cumplimiento a lo ordenado en su informe por parte de la Administración Tributaria, este tribunal estima que el traslado de cargos y las resoluciones determinativas dictadas contra el Banco BCT, reflejan el cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por el informe en mención y no como por error lo interpreta la representación del Banco BCT. En ese sentido, se reitera que la disposición del informe DFOE-IP-06-2005 relativa al inicio de las actuaciones de fiscalización, no dependía de la coordinación institucional para analizar el apego de la metodología Nombre67376 al ordenamiento jurídico, puesto que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 12 y 29 de la Ley Orgánica de la CGR, el informe es claro en disponer que el Ministro de Hacienda deberá: “…b) Realizar, en el marco de las competencias de la Administración Tributaria y de conformidad con los programas y procedimientos de fiscalización, y a la luz de lo expuesto en este informe, las actuaciones de fiscalización a las entidades bancarias del Sistema Bancario Nacional, según corresponda…”. En consecuencia, el alegato resulta improcedente y así debe declararse (ver en sentido similar, las sentencias 95-2019-V de las 10:30 horas del 18 de noviembre del 2019; 103-2019-V de las 13:30 horas del 10 de diciembre del 2019; 77-2019-VIII de las 08:00 horas del 04 de setiembre del 2019, todas del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda).

IXo.- RESPECTO A LAS DIFERENCIAS CAMBIARIAS POR OTRAS INVERSIONES Y OPERACIONES REALIZADAS EN EL EXTERIOR. En ese sentido, este Tribunal considera lo que de seguido se expone. El impuesto sobre las utilidades en términos generales, tiene como hecho generador, tal y como lo indica el artículo 1 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta -vigente en ese momento-, la percepción de rentas costarricenses, en los siguientes términos: "El hecho generador del impuesto sobre las utilidades referidas en el párrafo anterior, es la percepción de rentas en dinero o en especie, continuas u ocasionales, provenientes de cualquier fuente costarricense. Este impuesto también grava los ingresos, continuos o eventuales, de fuente costarricense, percibidos o devengados por personas físicas o jurídicas domiciliadas en el país; así como cualquier otro ingreso o beneficio de fuente costarricense no exceptuado por ley, (...) Para los efectos de lo dispuesto en los párrafos anteriores, se entenderá por rentas, ingresos o beneficios de fuente costarricense, los provenientes de servicios prestados, bienes situados, o capitales utilizados en el territorio nacional, que se obtengan durante el período fiscal de acuerdo con las disposiciones de esta ley." De igual forma los artículos 5 a 7 y 81 de la misma ley, preceptúan la forma de determinación de la base imponible, que en términos generales, es la deducción de la renta bruta, en la cual se incluyen todos los ingresos, de aquellos costos útiles y necesarios para la producción de la utilidad o beneficio, así como cualquier otro permitido por ley. Por su parte, el artículo 8 del Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta -vigente en ese momento- establecía: "Renta bruta. Está constituida por el total de ingresos o beneficios, en dinero o en especie, continuos o eventuales, percibidos o devengados durante el período del impuesto y provenientes de cualquier fuente costarricense de las actividades a que se refiere el párrafo cuarto del artículo 1º de la ley. También está constituida por las diferencias cambiarias originadas en activos en moneda extranjera, relacionadas con operaciones del giro habitual de los contribuyentes". Al ser la intermediación financiera la actividad principal del Banco BCT, lo que le lleva a la colocación de los recursos que recibe de los inversionistas para percibir mejores rendimientos, así como para prestarlos a los agentes deficitarios necesitados de esos recursos, se configura la habitualidad requerida, lo que lleva a que el diferencial cambiario proveniente de la internalización de los recursos, sea objeto del impuesto sobre las utilidades, lo que llevaría a declarar la nulidad de la resolución del TFA, en lo que se refiere al reconocimiento que se le hizo al Banco por ese rubro. En este punto, es menester resaltar que los apoderados del Banco BCT indican que resulta improcedente que se graven los ingresos obtenidos por diferencial cambiario por rentas obtenidas por operaciones e inversiones efectuadas con empresas del exterior -con las excepciones que establece la ley- dado que el numeral 1.3 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 28590-H establece que "...De conformidad con el artículo 10 de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional y el Plan de Cuentas para Entidades Financieras, no se tomarán en cuenta para la determinación de las utilidades netas de los bancos, los ajustes por valuación...". Sin perjuicio de que conforme al principio de legalidad tributaria previsto en el artículo 5 inciso a) del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios vigente en ese momento, las exenciones de una obligación tributaria es materia de reserva de ley, por lo que, mediante una norma reglamentaria no es posible establecer una exoneración; también lo es, que la aplicación de lo dispuesto en los numerales 10 y 12 de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional y 129 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica, con relación al alcance de las potestades allí otorgadas a la SUGEF, debe realizarse precisamente en función del principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria. En ese sentido, este Tribunal comparte el criterio contenido en la resolución determinativa número DT10R-058-08 de las 12:00 horas del 30 de abril del 2008 dictada por la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes de la Dirección General del Tributación, que respecto a este extremo consideró: "... La norma legal transcrita no tiene que ver con el gravamen de las diferencias cambiarias que se discute en la presente litis, sino más bien con la constitución de reservas relacionadas con fluctuaciones de cambio y su deducción para efectos de la determinación de las utilidades netas de los bancos. En efecto, una cosa es el gravamen del diferencial cambiario por descuentos y ganancias de capital generados por ajustes por cambios en el valor realizable de las inversiones, inversiones en dólares con retención en la fuente, inversiones en dólares exentas, entre otros, al amparo de lo establecido en los artículos 1,5 y 81 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta y 8 de su reglamento y otra cosa totalmente diferente son las denominadas reservas para fluctuaciones de cambio, que las entidades financieras reguladas por la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras están obligadas a establecer y que de acuerdo con el citado decreto no se tomarán en cuenta para determinar las utilidades netas de los bancos. En otras palabras, no se está rechazando suma alguna por concepto de reservas para fluctuaciones de cambio, sino que más bien lo que se está haciendo, es gravando ingresos por concepto de diferencial cambiario producto del desarrollo de su actividad habitual, a saber la intermediación financiera..." (folios 194 a 195 del tomo V del expediente administrativo "determinativo"; el resaltado no es del original). En consecuencia y por todo lo expuesto, el alegato resulta improcedente y así debe declararse (ver en sentido similar, las sentencias 95-2019-V de las 10:30 horas del 18 de noviembre del 2019; 77-2019-VIII de las 08:00 horas del 04 de setiembre del 2019, todas del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda).

Xo.- SOBRE LA ALEGADA RESPONSABILIDAD OBJETIVA DEL ESTADO POR CONDUCTA LÍCITA Y FUNCIONAMIENTO NORMAL. En la pretensión subsidiaria número 3 de la demanda interpuesta por el Banco BCT, solicitó "...que se declare la responsabilidad por conducta lícita y funcionamiento normal del Estado, siendo procedente solicitar que por la excepcional intensidad de la lesión y por la pequeña proporción de los afectados, se declare que no existe fundamento alguno para la imposición de intereses y multas relacionados con los ajustes tributarios que se practican en los actos cuestionados...". No obstante lo anterior, los representantes del Banco BCT no desarrollaron en su escrito de demanda (folios 13 a 78 del expediente judicial) los alegatos de hecho y de derecho en que sustentan la pretensión antes indicada, tal y como indicó la Procuradora apersonada en este proceso de conocimiento en su memorial de contestación de la demanda (folio 117 de expediente judicial). Dada la omisión indicada, este Tribunal no cuenta con los elementos necesarios para analizar y resolver si en el caso concreto se cumplen o no los presupuestos establecidos en el artículo 194 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, más aún que la representante del Estado tampoco ha podido proveer a su defensa por esa misma circunstancia, razón por la cual, este órgano colegiado rechaza la pretensión subsidiaria número 3. Aunado a lo anteriormente expuesto, cabe resaltar que -conforme a lo indicado por uno de los apoderados del Banco BCT en la etapa de saneamiento de la audiencia de juicio oral y público celebrada el 10 de diciembre del 2019 (ver respaldo digital de esa diligencia que consta en la carpeta de documentos asociados del expediente virtual)- la Administración Tributaria resolvió condonarle al Banco BCT los intereses sobre los montos determinados para los períodos fiscales comprendidos entre los años 1992 a 2005 por concepto de impuesto sobre la renta, decisión que motivó a dicha entidad bancaria a que el 02 de abril del 2014, pagara bajo protesta dichas sumas, tal y como se desprende de los comprobantes de pago visibles de folios 226 a 231 del expediente judicial. Tan es así, que ello provocó que el Banco BCT ampliara las pretensiones a efecto de que en el supuesto de que la demanda fuera declarada con lugar, se ordenara al Estado la "...devolución de los montos cancelados el día 2 de abril de 2014, más sus respectivos intereses generados desde el momento del pago, hasta la fecha de su efectiva devolución ...". Por todo lo expuesto, se rechaza la pretensión subsidiaria número 3 relativa a una supuesta responsabilidad objetiva del Estado por conducta lícita y funcionamiento normal.- XIo.- Nombre14412. Por todo lo expuesto en los considerandos V, VI, VII, VIII, IX y X de esta sentencia, se declaran improcedentes: a) La pretensión 1 de la demanda planteada por el Banco BCT, a efecto de que se declarara la nulidad absoluta del traslado de cargos; resoluciones determinativas, dictadas en el procedimiento de fiscalización del impuesto sobre la renta en períodos comprendidos entre 1999 y 2005, así como, la resolución dictada 114-2012 dictada por el TFA. b) La pretensión 2, para que de manera subsidiaria, se declare la nulidad parcial del traslado de cargos; resoluciones determinativas, dictadas en el procedimiento de fiscalización del impuesto sobre la renta en períodos comprendidos entre 1999 y 2005, así como, la resolución dictada 114-2012 dictada por el TFA, en todo lo que resulte ablativo a su representado. c) La pretensión 3, para que de forma subsidiaria, si se estimare que no hay motivo de nulidad, se declare la responsabilidad del Estado por conducta lícita y funcionamiento anormal, siendo procedente solicitar que por la excepcional intensidad de la lesión y por la pequeña proporción de los afectados, se declare que no existe fundamento alguno para la imposición de intereses y multas relacionados con los ajustes tributarios que se practican en los actos cuestionados; d) Asimismo, y por la forma en que se resuelve, también resulta improcedente la pretensión 5 (devolución de los montos cancelados bajo protesta más sus intereses) toda vez que su estimación se encontraba supeditada a que se acogieran las pretensiones anulatorias antes indicadas.

XIIo.- SOBRE LAS EXCEPCIONES DE FONDO. Considera este órgano colegiado que por todo lo expuesto en los considerandos IV, V, VI, VII, VIII; IX y X de esta sentencia, se acoge la excepción de falta de derecho interpuesta por el Estado y en consecuencia, se declara sin lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda interpuesta por el Banco BCT, S.A. contra el Estado. Por su parte y con sustento en todo lo expuesto en los considerandos IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX y X de esta sentencia, se rechaza la excepción de falta de derecho interpuesta por el Banco BCT, S.A., y por ende, se declara con lugar la demanda de lesividad interpuesta por el Estado contra dicha entidad bancaria, en los siguientes términos, entendiéndose por denegada en lo que no se indique de manera expresa: 1) Se declara la nulidad absoluta parcial por ser lesiva a los intereses públicos, fiscales y económicos del Estado, de la resolución número TFA-114 dictada por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo de las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo del 2012, en cuanto dispone aceptar como gastos necesarios, útiles y pertinentes para la generación de rentas gravables, los porcentajes de 23.20% para 1999, 29.46% para el 2000, 25.28% para el 2001, 36.54% para el 2002, 29.55% para el 2003, 32.64% para el 2004 y 35.87% para el 2005, por concepto de “gastos financieros intereses” por la captación de recursos para constituir reservas de liquidez a favor del Banco BCT, S.A.; 2) Se declara la nulidad absoluta parcial por ser lesiva a los intereses públicos, fiscales y económicos del Estado, de la resolución número TFA-114 dictada por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo de las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo del 2012, en cuanto dispuso: "...Se revoca la resolución recurrida en cuanto a los ajustes: (…) B) INGRESOS GRAVABLES DECLARADOS COMO NO GRAVABLES, (Rentas por intereses obtenidas por operaciones e inversiones efectuadas con empresas del exterior)…”; 3) En consecuencia, se mantiene lo resuelto por la entonces Administración Tributaria de Grandes Contribuyentes en la resolución determinativa número DT10R-058-08 de las 12:00 horas del 30 de abril del 2008, confirmada por resolución número AU10R-076-08 también dictada por la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes, a las 12:00 horas del 03 de junio del 2008; 4) En razón de lo anterior, una vez que esta sentencia se encuentre firme, la Dirección de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales de la Dirección General de Tributación, deberá proceder a liquidar la obligación tributaria del Banco BCT, S.A. relativa al Impuesto sobre la Renta en los períodos fiscales comprendidos entre 1999 al 2005, inclusive, conforme a lo dispuesto en la resolución determinativa número DT10R-058-08 de las 12:00 horas del 30 de abril del 2008, en los términos que han sido dispuestos en esta sentencia, de lo cual, las representantes del Estado deberán poner en conocimiento de los Jueces de la Fase Ejecución de sentencias de este Tribunal, en un plazo de seis meses contado a partir de que este pronunciamiento adquiera firmeza. Lo anterior, sin perjuicio de la condonación de intereses a favor del Banco BCT, S.A. dispuesta por la Dirección General de Hacienda.- XIIIo.- SOBRE LAS COSTAS. De conformidad con el numeral 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, las costas procesales y personales constituyen una carga que se impone a la parte vencida por el hecho de serlo. La dispensa de esta condena solo es viable cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar o bien, cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas cuya existencia desconociera la parte contraria. En la especie, este órgano colegiado encuentra motivo para aplicar las excepciones que fija la normativa aplicable y quebrar el postulado de condena al vencido, pues en virtud de la naturaleza de las cuestiones debatidas, se estima que el Banco BCT tuvo motivo bastante para litigar. En cuanto al proceso de lesividad, pese a que se acogen en su totalidad las pretensiones allí planteadas, este órgano colegiado estima que en virtud del cambio de criterio del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo; la forma en la que se desarrollaron los hechos que aquí fueron ventilados, y los precedentes jurisdiccionales existentes, la representación de Banco BCT tenía motivo suficiente para litigar, razón por la cual se resuelve sin especial condenatoria en costas. Por ende, ambas partes deberán asumir la costas que les generó este proceso (ver en sentido similar, las sentencias 95-2019-V de las 10:30 horas del 18 de noviembre del 2019; 103-2019-V de las 13:30 horas del 10 de diciembre del 2019, ambas dictadas por la Sección V del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda).

POR TANTO.

Se acoge la excepción de falta de derecho interpuesta por el Estado y en consecuencia, se declara sin lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda interpuesta por el Banco BCT, S.A. contra el Estado. Por su parte, se rechaza la excepción de falta de derecho interpuesta por el Banco BCT, S.A., y por ende, se declara con lugar la demanda de lesividad interpuesta por el Estado contra dicha entidad bancaria, en los siguientes términos, entendiéndose por denegada en lo que no se indique de manera expresa: 1) Se declara la nulidad absoluta parcial por ser lesiva a los intereses públicos, fiscales y económicos del Estado, de la resolución número TFA-114 dictada por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo de las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo del 2012, en cuanto dispone aceptar como gastos necesarios, útiles y pertinentes para la generación de rentas gravables, los porcentajes de 23.20% para 1999, 29.46% para el 2000, 25.28% para el 2001, 36.54% para el 2002, 29.55% para el 2003, 32.64% para el 2004 y 35.87% para el 2005, por concepto de “gastos financieros intereses” por la captación de recursos para constituir reservas de liquidez a favor del Banco BCT, S.A.; 2) Se declara la nulidad absoluta parcial por ser lesiva a los intereses públicos, fiscales y económicos del Estado, de la resolución número TFA-114 dictada por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo de las 11:00 horas del 12 de marzo del 2012, en cuanto dispuso: "...Se revoca la resolución recurrida en cuanto a los ajustes: (…) B) INGRESOS GRAVABLES DECLARADOS COMO NO GRAVABLES, (Rentas por intereses obtenidas por operaciones e inversiones efectuadas con empresas del exterior)…”; 3) En consecuencia, se mantiene lo resuelto por la entonces Administración Tributaria de Grandes Contribuyentes en la resolución determinativa número DT10R-058-08 de las 12:00 horas del 30 de abril del 2008, confirmada por resolución número AU10R-076-08 también dictada por la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes, a las 12:00 horas del 03 de junio del 2008; 4) En razón de lo anterior, una vez que esta sentencia se encuentre firme, la Dirección de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales de la Dirección General de Tributación, deberá proceder a liquidar la obligación tributaria del Banco BCT, S.A. relativa al Impuesto sobre la Renta en los períodos fiscales comprendidos entre 1999 al 2005, inclusive, conforme a lo dispuesto en la resolución determinativa número DT10R-058-08 de las 12:00 horas del 30 de abril del 2008, en los términos que han sido dispuestos en esta sentencia, de lo cual, las representantes del Estado deberán poner en conocimiento de los Jueces de la Fase Ejecución de sentencias de este Tribunal, en un plazo de seis meses contado a partir de que este pronunciamiento adquiera firmeza. Lo anterior, sin perjuicio de la condonación de intereses a favor del Banco BCT, S.A. dispuesta por la Dirección General de Hacienda. 5) Se resuelven estos asuntos sin especial condenatoria en costas.- Marianella Álvarez Molina Ileana Isabel Sánchez Navarro Juan Luis Giusti Soto ASUNTO: PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO ACTORES: BANCO BCT, S.A.; EL ESTADO (Procuradora Paula Azofeifa Chavarría) DEMANDADOS: EL ESTADO (Procuradora Sandra Sánchez y Nombre5486) Y EL BANCO BCT, S.A.

*JTNNQHQRZVC61*