Exemption from real estate tax for free-zone company reclassified as processing industryExoneración del impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles a empresa de zona franca trasladada a categoría de industria procesadora

Administrative Contentious Tribunal, Third Section Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Anexo A Building _______________________________________________________________________ PROCEEDING: HIERARCHICAL APPEAL APPELLANT: PROQUINAL COSTA RICA S.A.

RESPONDENT: MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELA N° 385-2020 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTENTIOUS AND CIVIL TREASURY TRIBUNAL, THIRD SECTION. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ, ANEXO A. GOICOECHEA, at fourteen hours forty-five minutes on the twenty-ninth of June of the year two thousand twenty.- This Tribunal hears, as improper hierarchical superior, the appeal filed by Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., with legal identification number 3-101-300576, represented by Danilo Chaverri Soto, bearer of identity card 4-083-242, against the resolution issued at 11:00 hours on October 31, 2018, signed by the Municipal Mayor's Office of Alajuela. - Judge Chaves Torres writes; and,

CONSIDERING:

I.-Background. Of importance for the resolution of this matter -using a folio numbering of the digital file generated in the Virtual Desktop as a single document and in ascending order-, the following is deemed duly accredited: 1) That on March 11, 2015, through proceeding N°4902, the company Proquinal Costa Rica requests the Municipality of Alajuela, based on judgment 229-2015 of the Administrative Contentious Tribunal and executive decree N°0408-2012 published in La Gaceta N°223 of November 19, 2012, the following: "a. (...) to consider revoked the administrative resolution issued at 15:10 hr, on March 3, 2015, notified on March 5, 2015 at 10:31 hr, insofar as it denied the reimbursement of the sums unduly paid by my represented party, for real estate tax (bienes inmuebles), prior to the IV quarter of 2005. b. That the Municipalidad de Alajuela expressly recognize the exemption (exención) that Proquinal Costa Rica S.A. has from the payment of the real estate tax (impuesto de bienes inmuebles), starting from fiscal period 2013 and for up to ten years, according to executive agreement N°0408-2012, by which the Ministry of Foreign Trade authorized the transfer of my represented party to the category provided in subsection f) of Article 17 of the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas, classifying it as a processing industry. Exemption (exención) that is provided for in subsection d) of Article 20 of the Ley de Régimen de Zona Franca. c. That the Municipalidad de Alajuela proceed to reimburse my represented party for the undue payments made by Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., for real estate tax (bienes inmuebles), starting from the year 2013, plus their respective interest, at the rate established by Article 58 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios...". (See folios 503 to 506). 2) That on October 31, 2018, the Municipal Mayor's Office of Alajuela decides to reject the reimbursement of sums paid and the recognition of the tax exemption (exoneración) to the petitioning company, considering that the 10-year benefit expired starting from fiscal period 2013 for property 2-376458-000, and adds that it has already complied with the refund of the sums set in judgment N°229-2015 of the Administrative Contentious Tribunal. (See folio 523). 3) That on November 8, 2018, the representation of the company Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., files its revocation appeal with appeal in subsidy against the resolution described in the previous fact, resulting in the rejection of the horizontal challenge at 10:00 hours on December 3, 2018, the Mayor of Alajuela decides to elevate the appeal to this Tribunal. (See folios 527) II.-Object of the appeal. The appellant's representation states that there is a lack of motivation and inconsistency in what was resolved by the Mayor's Office. It points out that, being aware that the Administrative Contentious Tribunal did not rule on the tax exemption (exoneración) recognized by the Ministry of Foreign Relations in Executive agreement N°0408-2012 published in La Gaceta N°223 of November 19, 2012, its represented party filed the petition of March 11, 2015, according to proceeding slip N°4902, where it requests the recognition by the Municipality and the reimbursement of the sums paid since 2013. However, it adds that the Municipality did not rule on the extremes of its petition; it simply limited itself to indicating that it had complied with the enforcement judgment by paying the refund of the tax paid from the IV quarter of the year 2005 to the IV quarter of the year 2012. It adds that this aspect was not under discussion, since what was requested was the recognition of that same refund, but starting from 2013, based on the new exemption (exoneración) granted in executive agreement N°0408-2012. It specifies that the petition for exemption (exoneración) should have been granted insofar as the Ministry of Foreign Trade authorized the transfer of its represented party to the category provided in subsection f) of Article 17 and exemptions of Article 20 of the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas, classifying it as a processing industry. Additionally, it points out that the Municipalidad de Alajuela consulted the Procuraduría General de la República through official letter N°MA-ABI-0296-2015 dated March 16, 2015, and said body, in binding opinion C-079-2017 of April 17, 2017, concludes that companies that transfer to the category described in subsection f) of Article 17 of Law N°7210 and that meet the requirements established in subsections a) and c) of Article 21 bis of said law, are entitled to the incentives provided in subsection d) of Article 20 of Law N°7210.

III.On the merits. From a detailed study of the appeal and the challenged administrative act, it is clear to this Chamber that the present controversy revolves around the pillar of the subjective exemption (exoneración subjetiva), which the appellant company claims in its favor, regarding the real estate tax (impuesto de bienes inmuebles) contained in Law N°7509. In this sense, the appellant is correct that the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas -Law No. 7210 of November 23, 1990, effective as of December 14, 1990-, created fiscal incentives in favor of some companies producing goods and services, whose final destination is outside the domestic market and, within these benefits, Article 20 subsection d) included the following:

"Article 20: Companies covered by the free zone regime shall enjoy the following incentives, with the exceptions indicated below: (...) d) Exemption for a period of ten years from the start of operations, from the payment of taxes on capital and net assets, from the payment of the territorial tax (impuesto territorial) and from the real estate transfer tax (impuesto de traspaso de bienes inmuebles)." (Highlighting is ours).

It is also correct that through the reform introduced by Law N°8794 of January 22, 2010, to the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas (N°7210), a specific exception regime to the ten-year term contained in the article just transcribed was included; and that it is developed in articles 17 subsection f), 20 bis, 21 bis and 21 ter, with the following scope:

"Article 17.- Companies that adhere to the free zone regime shall be classified under one or more of the following categories: (...)

• f)Processing industries that produce, process or assemble goods, regardless of whether or not they export, that meet the requirements established in Article 21 bis of this Law..." (Highlighting is ours).

"Article 21 bis. - The beneficiary companies referred to in subsection f) of Article 17 of this Law must meet the following requirements:

• a)That the project is executed under the free zone regime, within a strategic sector for the country's development, or that it is established outside the Gran Área Metropolitana Ampliada (GAMA). For the definition of strategic sectors, the Executive Branch must form a special commission composed of the Minister of Foreign Trade, who shall coordinate it, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Planning and Economic Policy, or their representatives, a representative of the Centro de Alta Tecnología and a representative of the productive sector, who shall be chosen from among the Asociación de Empresas de Zonas Francas de Costa Rica, the Coalición Costarricense de Iniciativas de Desarrollo (Cinde), the Cámara de Exportadores and the Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica. In order to establish the definition of a strategic sector, said special commission must take into consideration the National Development Plan, the prior opinion of the interested sectors and the following guidelines: projects qualified as having high contribution to social development and that generate quality employment, those that through the incorporation of high technologies effectively contribute to the productive modernization of the country, those that develop research and development activities, those that promote innovation and technology transfer or those that promote the incorporation of clean technologies, comprehensive waste management, energy saving and efficient water management.
• b)That they make new investments in the country, according to the terms established in Article 1 of the law, and that the nature and characteristics of those investments are such that they could be made in another country or transferred to another country. This circumstance shall be presumed if the controlling entity operates abroad, outside of Central America and Panama, at least one processing plant similar to the plant that the beneficiary company of the regime will operate in Costa Rica. For the purposes of this Law, controlling entity is understood as the legal entity that owns or exercises direct or indirect shareholder control of the beneficiary company established in Costa Rica, or that exercises managerial power over it, as detailed in the regulations.
• c)That on the date of filing the application to the regime, under subsection f) of Article 17 of this Law, the company is exempt (exenta), totally or partially, or is not subject to the payment of income tax (impuesto sobre la renta) in Costa Rica. This requirement shall not be met if the project or the activities to be developed by a requesting legal entity under the regime are the product of the acquisition or absorption, by any title, of a legal entity that was subject to the payment of income tax in Costa Rica or of its main assets. If such acquisition or absorption occurs after the applicant enters the regime, the percentage of exemption (exoneración) from taxes on the importation of machinery, equipment and raw materials and taxes on profits shall be reduced in the same proportion that the acquired assets represent in relation to the total assets of the company. If a company requests to adhere to the free zone regime under subsection f) of Article 17, with the purpose of providing a significant proportion of goods to companies established in accordance with the provisions of this article, it will only be necessary that it is a new investment in the country. Likewise, if a company requests to adhere to the free zone regime under subsection f) of Article 17, with the purpose of establishing itself in a zone located outside the Gran Área Metropolitana Ampliada (GAMA), it will not be necessary that it belongs to a strategic sector for the country's development. "Significant proportion" shall be understood when the companies referred to in this paragraph provide to the free zone companies at least forty percent (40%) of their total sales. If a company not benefiting from the incentives of the free zone regime is installed in an industrial park regulated by this Law with the purpose of providing goods or services to the beneficiary companies installed in said park, the provisions of subsection ch) of Article 17 of this Law for the administrator companies shall not be applicable.) (Highlighting is ours).

"Article 21 ter. - The companies indicated in Article 21 bis of this Law shall be subject to the following rules: (...)

• b)The exemptions (exenciones) and benefits established in subsections a), b), c), ch), d), e), f), h), i), j) and l) of Article 20 of the Law shall be applied to them.

(...)

• h)When the company from a strategic sector is installed in a zone outside the Gran Área Metropolitana Ampliada (GAMA) and maintains one hundred permanent employees, throughout the entire operation of the company, duly reported on payrolls, the benefits indicated in subsections d), g) and l) of Article 20 of this Law shall be fully applied. The computation of the final term of this benefit shall be counted from the date of start of productive operations of the beneficiary company, provided that said date does not exceed three years from the publication of the respective granting agreement. Likewise, these companies may be installed outside an industrial park, provided that the initial investment in new fixed assets is at least five hundred thousand dollars (US$500,000) or its equivalent in national currency and that the pertinent customs and fiscal controls are in place." (Highlighting is ours).

"Article 21 quáter.- Companies covered by the free zone regime under subsections b), c), ch) and d) of Article 17 of the Ley de régimen de zonas francas, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, shall continue to enjoy the incentives established in subsections a), b), c), ch), d), e), f), g), h), i) and j) of Article 20 of this Law, under the terms provided by said article." (Highlighting is ours).

Furthermore, transitory provisions I and III of the same Law 8784 provide the following regarding this special regime:

"TRANSITORIO I.-The incentives of subsections b), d), f), g), h) and l) of Article 20 of the Ley de régimen de zonas francas, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, and its amendments, shall continue to be enjoyed by the companies indicated in subsection a) of Article 17 of said Law, until the date on which the term provided in paragraph 4 of Article 27 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures that forms part of the Final Act embodying the results of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, approved by Law No. 7475, of December 20, 1994, expires for Costa Rica, including the extensions approved by the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of the World Trade Organization and as long as Costa Rica is eligible for and obtains said extensions, at which time the benefits shall cease and become without effect. No later than the same date on which the aforementioned term expires, the other incentives applicable to the beneficiary companies of the free zone regime must have been adapted as pertinent, with respect to the companies indicated in subsection a) of Article 17 of the Ley de régimen de zonas francas, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, to the provisions of the mentioned Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, in accordance with the regulatory provisions that the Executive Branch shall issue for that purpose." (Highlighting is ours).

" TRANSITORIO III.- The beneficiary companies indicated in subsection a) of Article 17 of the Ley de régimen de zonas francas, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, and its amendments, may request to transfer to the category described in subsection f) of the same article, provided they meet the requirements established in subsections a) and c) of Article 21 bis of this Law and make new investments under the terms provided by Article one of this same regulatory body. In the event that the company enjoys the benefits in a condition outside the industrial park, the minimum investment shall be five hundred thousand United States dollars (US$500,000). In such cases, from the transfer onwards, the terms shall begin to run and the conditions provided in Articles 21 bis and 21 ter of this Law shall apply." (Highlighting is ours).

In summary, the company Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., being classified by the Ministry of Trade through executive decree N°0408-2012 published in La Gaceta N°223 of November 19, 2012, in category a) of Article 17 of Law 7210 and its amendments, shall continue to enjoy the benefits provided in subsection d) of Article 20 of the cited law, until the expiration of the term, according to the respective agreement granting the regime or until the extensions mentioned in Transitorio I of Law N° 8794 expire for Costa Rica. Now then, once the validity of the exemption (exoneración) of subsection d) of Article 20 of Law 7210 has been surpassed, it is necessary to remember that said exception regime survived the entry into force of the Ley Reguladora de Todas las Exoneraciones Vigentes, su Derogatoria y sus Excepciones -Law 7293 effective as of April 3, 1992-, since Article 2 subsection k) thereof expressly so provided. In several precedents of this Tribunal, it had been ruled that according to Article 38 of the Real Estate Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles) -Law N°7509-, the territorial tax (impuesto territorial) had been expressly repealed, so we were in the presence of a new tax that, being subsequent to the exemption regime (régimen de exoneraciones) for the territorial tax, in application of Article 63 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, was not covered by the exemption (exoneración) contained in numeral 20 subsection d) of the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas nor by the special laws of subjective exemption (exoneración subjetiva), referred to in subsection a) of Article 4 of the Real Estate Tax Law (Ley de Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles), whose validity is prior to the new tax, among them the case of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad. Despite the foregoing, the recent jurisprudential line of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, contained in Voto N°476-F-S1-2019 issued by Chamber I at 11:45 hours on May 30, 2019 (in the same sense, see votes N°475-2019, 1849-2019 and N° 816-2018); recognizes the application of the same subjective exemption regime (régimen de exoneración subjetiva) to both taxes, that is, it ends up applying an exemption (exoneración) from the real estate tax (impuesto de bienes inmuebles) in favor of ICE, historically provided by the legal system for the territorial tax (impuesto territorial), using the technical concept of "non-subjection (no sujeción)" poorly employed by the legislator in Article 4 of Law N°7509. Therefore, since said jurisprudence is part of the sources of Law applicable to the specific case - Article 7 of the LGAP and 185 CPCA-, its scope regarding subjective exemptions (exoneraciones subjetivas) to the real estate tax (impuesto de bienes inmuebles) must be respected. Additionally, the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber in Voto 7688-15 at 9:00 on May 27, 2015, cannot be omitted either, from which it is reliably inferred that despite what was stated by the State representation, so that the exemption (exoneración) of numeral 20 subsection d) of the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas applies to the territorial tax (impuesto territorial); the Chamber, in considering V, kept it in force for the real estate tax (impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles), likening both taxes only in the applicable exemption regime (régimen de exoneración). This position of the High Constitutional Court is relevant for the specific case in compliance with Article 8 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch. For all the foregoing reasons, it is imperative to annul the resolution issued at 11:00 hours on October 31, 2018, signed by the Municipal Mayor's Office of Alajuela, insofar as it does not recognize the exemption (exoneración) from the real estate tax (impuesto de bienes inmuebles) in favor of the company Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., which, in light of Executive agreement N°0408-2012 published in La Gaceta N°223 of November 19, 2012, presented before the Municipality attached to the petition of March 11, 2015, according to proceeding slip N°4902, is under the coverage of the privileges of Article 20 of the cited Law. Consequently, the refund of the tax paid since 2013 must proceed under the terms initially requested, without prejudice to the time limit contained in Article 43 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios.

IV.- On the return of the file. Since this venue has been substantiated electronically, it is available to the parties to obtain a comprehensive copy containing both the administrative file submitted by the Municipal Corporation and all the pieces that make up this appeal, for which purpose they must provide the electronic storage device (USB flash drive or compact disc). Likewise, in the event that physical or electronic documentation has been submitted (plans, photographs, reports, etc.) that still remains in the custody of the Office, it may be withdrawn by the party who provided it within a period of 30 business days, in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial, approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in Boletín Judicial No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

POR TANTO

The appeal filed is granted, and it is imperative to annul the resolution issued at 11:00 hours on October 31, 2018, signed by the Municipal Mayor's Office of Alajuela, insofar as it decides not to recognize the exemption (exoneración) from the real estate tax (impuesto de bienes inmuebles) in favor of the company Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., by reason of Executive agreement N°0408-2012 published in La Gaceta N°223 of November 19, 2012, presented before the Municipality attached to the petition of March 11, 2015, according to proceeding slip N°4902. Consequently, the refund of the tax paid since 2013 must proceed, under the terms requested, without prejudice to the time limit contained in Article 43 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios.

Francisco José Chaves Torres Evelyn Solano Ulloa Jorge Leiva Poveda PROCEEDING: HIERARCHICAL APPEAL APPELLANT: PROQUINAL COSTA RICA S.A.

RESPONDENT: MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELA *OFT47WRMTLQU61* FRANCISCO CHAVES TORRES, DECIDING JUDGE/A JORGE LEIVA POVEDA, DECIDING JUDGE/A EVELYN SOLANO ULLOA, DECIDING JUDGE/A **3)** That on November 8, 2018, the representative of the company Proquinal Costa Rica S.A. filed its appeal for reversal with a subsidiary appeal against the resolution described in the preceding fact, resulting in the horizontal challenge being rejected at 10:00 a.m. on December 3, 2018, and the Mayor of Alajuela decided to elevate the appeal to this Tribunal. (See folio 527) **II.-Object of the appeal.** The appellant representative argues that there is a lack of reasoning (motivación) and inconsistency in the decision rendered by the Mayor's Office. It indicates that, its represented party being aware that the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal did not rule on the tax exemption recognized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Executive Agreement No. 0408-2012 published in La Gaceta No. 223 of November 19, 2012, it filed the motion of March 11, 2015, according to processing slip No. 4902, requesting recognition by the Municipality and reimbursement of the sums paid since 2013. However, it adds that the Municipality did not rule on the points of its petition; it merely limited itself to indicating that it complied with the enforcement judgment by paying the refund of the tax paid from the 4th quarter of 2005 to the 4th quarter of 2012. It adds that this aspect was not under discussion, since what was requested was the recognition of that same refund, but starting in 2013, based on the new exemption granted in Executive Agreement No. 0408-2012. It points out that the exemption request should have been granted insofar as the Ministry of Foreign Trade authorized the transfer of its represented party to the category provided for in subsection f) of Article 17 and the exemptions of Article 20 of the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas, classifying it as a processing industry. Additionally, it indicates that the Municipality of Alajuela consulted the Procuraduría General de la República through official letter No. MA-ABI-0296-2015 dated March 16, 2015, and said body, in binding opinion C-079-2017 of April 17, 2017, concludes that companies that transfer to the category described in subsection f) of Article 17 of Law No. 7210 and that meet the requirements established in subsections a) and c) of Article 21 bis of said law, are entitled to the incentives provided for in subsection d) of Article 20 of Law No. 7210.

**III. On the merits.** From a detailed study of the appeal and the challenged administrative act, it is clear to this Chamber that the present controversy revolves around the pillar of the subjective exemption (exoneración subjetiva) claimed by the appellant company in its favor, regarding the real property tax (impuesto de bienes inmuebles) contained in Law No. 7509. In this regard, the appellant is correct that the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas—Law No. 7210 of November 23, 1990, effective as of December 14, 1990—created fiscal incentives in favor of certain companies producing goods and services whose final destination is outside the domestic market and, within these benefits, Article 20, subsection d) included the following:

> "*Article 20:* Companies covered by the zona franca regime shall enjoy the following *incentives*, with the exceptions indicated below: (...) *d) Exemption for a period of ten years* starting from the initiation of operations, from the payment of taxes on capital and net assets, from the payment of the territorial tax (impuesto territorial) and from the real property transfer tax (impuesto de traspaso de bienes inmuebles)." (Highlighting added).

It is also correct that through the amendment introduced by Law No. 8794 of January 22, 2010, to the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas (No. 7210), a specific regime of exception to the ten-year term contained in the article just transcribed is included; and which is developed in articles 17 subsection f), 20 bis, 21 bis, and 21 ter, with the following scope:

> "*Article 17.-* The companies that are covered by the zona franca regime shall be classified under one or more of the following categories: (...) > > *f) Processing industries that produce, process, or assemble goods, regardless of whether they export or not, that meet the requirements established in Article 21 bis* of this Law..." (Highlighting added).

> "*Article 21 bis.-* The beneficiary companies referred to in subsection f) of Article 17 of this Law must meet the following requirements: > > a) That the project is executed under the zona franca regime, within a strategic sector for the country's development, or that it is established outside the Gran Área Metropolitana Ampliada (GAMA). For the definition of strategic sectors, the Executive Branch must form a special commission composed of the Minister of Foreign Trade, who shall coordinate it, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Planning and Economic Policy, or their representatives, a representative from the Centro de Alta Tecnología and a representative from the productive sector, who shall be chosen from among the Asociación de Empresas de Zonas Francas de Costa Rica, the Coalición Costarricense de Iniciativas de Desarrollo (Cinde), the Cámara de Exportadores, and the Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica. In order to establish the definition of strategic sector, the cited special commission must take into consideration the National Development Plan, the prior opinion of the interested sectors, and the following guidelines: projects qualified as having a high contribution to social development and that generate quality employment, those that by incorporating high technologies effectively contribute to the productive modernization of the country, those that develop research and development activities, those that promote innovation and technology transfer, or those that promote the incorporation of clean technologies, integrated waste management, energy savings, and efficient water management. > > b) That they make new investments in the country, according to the terms established in Article 1 of the law, and that the nature and characteristics of such investments are such that they could be made in another country or transferred to another country. This circumstance shall be presumed if the controlling entity operates abroad, outside of Central America and Panama, at least one processing plant similar to the plant that the beneficiary company of the regime will operate in Costa Rica. For the purposes of this Law, controlling entity means the legal entity that owns or exercises, directly or indirectly, the controlling shareholding of the beneficiary company established in Costa Rica, or that exercises management power over it, as detailed in the regulations. > > c) That on the date of filing the application to the regime, under subsection f) of Article 17 of this Law, the company is exempt, totally or partially, or is not subject to the payment of income tax (impuesto sobre la renta) in Costa Rica. This requirement shall not be met if the project or the activities to be developed by an applicant legal entity under the regime are the product of the acquisition or absorption, by any title, of a legal entity that was subject to the payment of income tax in Costa Rica or of its main assets. If such acquisition or absorption occurs after the applicant enters the regime, the exemption percentage for taxes on the importation of machinery, equipment, and raw materials and taxes on profits shall be reduced in the same proportion that the acquired assets represent in relation to the total assets of the company. If a company applies to join the zona franca regime under subsection f) of Article 17, with the purpose of providing a significant proportion of goods to companies established in accordance with what is indicated in this article, it shall only be necessary that it involves a new investment in the country. Likewise, if a company applies to join the zona franca regime under subsection f) of Article 17, with the purpose of establishing itself in an area located outside the Gran Área Metropolitana Ampliada (GAMA), it shall not be necessary that it belongs to a strategic sector for the country's development. "Significant proportion" shall mean when the companies referred to in this paragraph provide the zona franca companies at least forty percent (40%) of their total sales. If a company that is not a beneficiary of the incentives of the zona franca regime establishes itself in an industrial park regulated by this Law for the purpose of providing goods or services to the beneficiary companies established in said park, the provisions of subsection ch) of Article 17 of this Law for administrator companies shall not be applicable.) (Highlighting added).

> "*Article 21 ter.-* The companies indicated in Article 21 bis of this Law shall be subject to the following rules: (...) > > *b) The exemptions and benefits established in subsections a), b), c), ch), d), e), f), h), i), j), and l) of Article 20 of the Law shall apply to them.* > > (...) > > h) When a company from a strategic sector establishes itself in an area outside the Gran Área Metropolitana Ampliada (GAMA) and maintains one hundred permanent employees, throughout the entire operation of the company, duly reported on payrolls, the *benefits indicated in subsections d), g), and l) of Article 20 of this Law shall apply to it in full. The calculation of the final term of this benefit shall be counted from the start date of the productive operations of the beneficiary company, provided that said date does not exceed three years from the publication of the respective granting agreement*. Likewise, these companies may establish themselves outside of an industrial park, provided that the initial investment in new fixed assets is at least five hundred thousand dollars (US$500,000) or its equivalent in national currency and that the pertinent customs and fiscal controls are in place." (Highlighting added).

> "*Article 21 quáter.-* > > Companies covered by the zona franca regime in accordance with subsections b), c), ch), and d) of Article 17 of the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, shall continue to enjoy the incentives established in subsections a), b), c), ch), d), e), f), g), h), i), and j) of Article 20 of this Law, under the terms set forth in said article." (Highlighting added).

To further elaborate, Transitory Provisions I and III of the same Law 8784 provide the following regarding this special regime:

> "*TRANSITORIO I.-* The incentives of subsections b), d), f), g), h), and l) of Article 20 of the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, and its amendments, shall *continue to be enjoyed by the companies indicated in subsection a) of Article 17 of said Law, until the date on which the term provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 27 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, which forms part of the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, approved by Law No. 7475, of December 20, 1994, expires for Costa Rica, including the extensions approved by the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of the World Trade Organization and as long as Costa Rica is eligible for and obtains such extensions, at which time the benefits shall cease and be rendered void.* At the latest, starting from the same date on which the aforementioned term expires, the other incentives applicable to the beneficiary companies of the zona franca regime must have been adjusted, as pertinent, for the companies indicated in subsection a) of Article 17 of the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, to the provisions of the mentioned Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, in accordance with the regulatory provisions that the Executive Branch shall issue for this purpose." (Highlighting added).

> "*TRANSITORIO III.-* The beneficiary companies indicated in subsection a) of Article 17 of the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, and its amendments, *may request a transfer to the category described in subsection f) of the same article, provided they meet the requirements established in subsections a) and c) of Article 21 bis of this Law and make new investments under the terms set forth in Article 1 of this same normative body.* In the event that the company enjoys the benefits under the condition of being outside the industrial park, the minimum investment shall be five hundred thousand United States dollars (US$500,000). In such cases, from the time of the transfer, the terms shall begin to run and the conditions provided for in Articles 21 bis and 21 ter of this Law shall apply." (Highlighting added).

In summary, the company Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., being classified by the Ministry of Foreign Trade via Executive Decree No. 0408-2012 published in La Gaceta No. 223 of November 19, 2012, under category a) of Article 17 of Law 7210 and its amendments, shall continue to enjoy the benefits provided for in subsection d) of Article 20 of the cited law, until the expiration of the term, according to the respective granting agreement of the regime or until the extensions mentioned in Transitorio I of Law No. 8794 expire for Costa Rica. Now then, once the validity of the exemption in subsection d) of Article 20 of Law 7210 has been exceeded, it is necessary to recall that said exemption regime survived the entry into force of the Ley Reguladora de Todas las Exoneraciones Vigentes, su Derogatoria y sus Excepciones—Law 7293 effective since April 3, 1992—since Article 2, subsection k) itself expressly so provided. In several precedents of this Tribunal, it had been held that pursuant to Article 38 of the Ley del Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles—Law No. 7509—, the territorial tax had been expressly derogated, such that we were in the presence of a new tax which, being subsequent to the exemption regime for the territorial tax, in application of Article 63 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, was not reached by the exemption contained in numeral 20, subsection d) of the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas, nor by the special subjective exemption laws referred to in subsection a) of Article 4 of the Ley de Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles, whose validity predates the new tax, among them the case of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad. Despite the foregoing, the recent jurisprudential line of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, contained in Voto No. 476-F-S1-2019 issued by Chamber I at 11:45 a.m. on May 30, 2019 (in the same sense, see votes No. 475-2019, 1849-2019, and No. 816-2018); recognizes the application of the same subjective exemption regime for both taxes, that is, it ends up applying an exemption from the real property tax in favor of ICE, historically provided by the legal system for the territorial tax, using the technical concept of "non-subjection" (no sujeción) poorly employed by the legislator in Article 4 of Law No. 7509. Therefore, as this jurisprudence is part of the sources of Law applicable to the specific case—Article 7 of the LGAP and Article 185 of the CPCA—its scope regarding subjective exemptions from the real property tax must be respected. Additionally, one cannot omit what was decided by the Constitutional Chamber in Voto 7688-15 at 9:00 a.m. on May 27, 2015, from which it reliably emerges that despite what was stated by the State representation, regarding whether the exemption of numeral 20, subsection d) of the Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas applies to the territorial tax; the Chamber, in Considerando V, kept it in force for the real property tax, likening both taxes solely in the applicable exemption regime. This position of the High Constitutional Court is relevant for the specific case in adherence to article 8 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial. For all of the above, it is imperative to annul the resolution of 11:00 a.m. on October 31, 2018, signed by the Municipal Mayor's Office of Alajuela, insofar as it does not recognize the exemption from the real property tax in favor of the company Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., which, in light of Executive Agreement No. 0408-2012 published in La Gaceta No. 223 of November 19, 2012, presented to the Municipality attached to the motion of March 11, 2015, according to processing slip No. 4902, is under the coverage of the privileges of Article 20 of the cited Law. Consequently, the refund of the tax paid since 2013 must be processed under the terms initially requested, without detriment to the term contained in article 43 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios.

**IV.-** On the return of the file. As this venue was processed electronically, a complete copy containing both the administrative file submitted by the Municipal Corporation and the entirety of the pieces that make up this appeal is available to the parties, for which purpose they must provide the electronic storage device (USB drive or compact disc).

Likewise, in the event that physical or electronic documentation (plans, photographs, reports, etc.) has been submitted and still remains in the custody of the Office, the person who provided it may withdraw it within a period of 30 business days, in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial, approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in the Boletín Judicial No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.

**POR TANTO** The appeal filed is granted, and the resolution issued at 11:00 a.m. on October 31, 2018, signed by the Alcaldía Municipal de Alajuela, is hereby annulled, insofar as it decides not to recognize the exemption from the real estate tax in favor of the company Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., by reason of Executive Agreement No. 0408-2012 published in La Gaceta No. 223 of November 19, 2012, presented to the Municipal Council attached to the filing of March 11, 2015, according to processing slip No. 4902. Consequently, the refund of the tax paid since 2013 must proceed, under the requested terms, without prejudice to the time limit contained in Article 43 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios.

**Francisco José Chaves Torres** **Evelyn Solano Ulloa Jorge Leiva Poveda** PROCESO: APELACIÓN EN JERARQUÍA RECURRENTE: PROQUINAL COSTA RICA S.A.

RECURRIDA: MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELA

*OFT47WRMTLQU61*

In order to establish the definition of strategic sector, the aforementioned special commission must take into consideration the National Development Plan (Plan nacional de desarrollo), the prior opinion of the interested sectors, and the following guidelines: projects classified as having high contribution to social development and that generate quality employment, those that by incorporating advanced technologies effectively contribute to the productive modernization of the country, those that develop research and development activities, those that promote innovation and technology transfer, or those that promote the incorporation of clean technologies, comprehensive waste management (gestión integral de desechos), energy savings, and efficient water management (gestión eficiente de aguas).

• b)That they make new investments in the country, under the terms established in Article 1 of the law, and that the nature and characteristics of those investments are such that they could be made in another country or transferred to another country. This circumstance shall be presumed if the controlling entity (entidad controladora) operates abroad, outside of Central America and Panama, at least one processing plant similar to the plant that the company benefiting from the regime will operate in Costa Rica. For the purposes of this Law, controlling entity is understood as the legal entity that owns or exercises direct or indirect equity control of the beneficiary company established in Costa Rica, or that exercises management power over it, as detailed in the regulations.
• c)That on the date of filing the application for the regime, under subsection f) of Article 17 of this Law, the company is exempt, totally or partially, or is not subject to the payment of income tax (impuesto sobre la renta) in Costa Rica. This requirement will not be met if the project or the activities to be developed by a legal entity applying under the regime are the product of the acquisition or absorption, by any title, of a legal entity that was subject to the payment of income tax in Costa Rica or of its main assets. If such acquisition or absorption occurs after the applicant enters the regime, the percentage of exemption from taxes on the importation of machinery, equipment, and raw materials and taxes on profits shall be reduced in the same proportion that the acquired assets represent in relation to the total assets of the company. If a company applies to be covered by the free zone regime (régimen de zonas francas) under subsection f) of Article 17, with the purpose of providing a significant proportion (proporción significativa) of goods to established companies, as indicated in this article, it will only be necessary that it is a new investment in the country. Likewise, if a company applies to be covered by the free zone regime under subsection f) of Article 17, with the purpose of establishing itself in a zone located outside the Expanded Greater Metropolitan Area (Gran Área Metropolitana Ampliada, GAMA), it will not be necessary for it to belong to a strategic sector for the country's development. "Significant proportion" shall be understood when the companies referred to in this paragraph provide to the free zone companies at least forty percent (40%) of their total sales. If a non-beneficiary company of the free zone regime incentives establishes itself in an industrial park regulated by this Law for the purpose of providing goods or services to the beneficiary companies established in said park, the provisions established in subsection ch) of Article 17 of this Law for the managing companies shall not be applicable.)(The highlighting is ours).

  "**Article 21 ter. -** The companies indicated in Article 21 bis of this Law shall be subject to the following rules:(...)

**b)** The exemptions and benefits established in subsections a), b), c), ch), d), e), f), h), i), j), and l) of Article 20 of the Law shall apply to them.

(...)

• h)When a company from a strategic sector establishes itself in a zone outside the Expanded Greater Metropolitan Area (GAMA) and maintains one hundred permanent employees, duly reported on payrolls, throughout the entire operation of the company, the benefits indicated in subsections d), g), and l) of Article 20 of this Law shall be applied in full. The computation of the final term of this benefit shall be counted from the date of commencement of the productive operations of the beneficiary company, provided that said date does not exceed three years from the publication of the respective granting agreement. Likewise, these companies may establish themselves outside an industrial park, provided that the initial investment in new fixed assets is at least five hundred thousand dollars (US$500,000) or its equivalent in national currency and that the pertinent customs and fiscal controls are in place." (The highlighting is ours).

  "**Article 21 quáter.-** The companies covered by the free zone regime under subsections b), c), ch), and d) of Article 17 of the Free Zone Regime Law (Ley de régimen de zonas francas), No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, will continue to enjoy the incentives established in subsections a), b), c), ch), d), e), f), g), h), i), and j) of Article 20 of this Law, under the terms provided by said article." (The highlighting is ours).

  To further elaborate, Transitory Provisions I and III of the same Law 8784 provide the following regarding this special regime:

  "**TRANSITORIO I.**-The incentives of subsections b), d), f), g), h), and l) of Article 20 of the Free Zone Regime Law, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, and its amendments, shall continue to be enjoyed by the companies indicated in subsection a) of Article 17 of said Law, until the date on which the period established in paragraph 4 of Article 27 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures that forms part of the Final Act embodying the results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, approved by Law No. 7475, of December 20, 1994, expires for Costa Rica, including the extensions approved by the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of the World Trade Organization and as long as Costa Rica is eligible and obtains such extensions, at which time the benefits shall cease and be rendered without effect. No later than the same date on which the aforementioned period expires, the other incentives applicable to the companies benefiting from the free zone regime must have been adapted as pertinent, with respect to the companies indicated in subsection a) of Article 17 of the Free Zone Regime Law, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, to the provisions of the mentioned Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, in accordance with the regulatory provisions that the Executive Branch (Poder Ejecutivo) shall issue for this purpose." (The highlighting is ours).

  "**TRANSITORIO III.-** The beneficiary companies indicated in subsection a) of Article 17 of the Free Zone Regime Law, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, and its amendments, may request to be transferred to the category described in subsection f) of the same article, provided they meet the requirements established in subsections a) and c) of Article 21 bis of this Law and make new investments under the terms provided by Article one of this same regulatory body. In the event that the company enjoys the benefits under the condition of being outside the industrial park, the minimum investment shall be five hundred thousand U.S. dollars (US$500,000). In such cases, from the transfer onward, the periods shall begin to run and the conditions provided in Articles 21 bis and 21 ter of this Law shall apply." (The highlighting is ours).

  In summary, the company Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., having been classified by the Ministry of Commerce (Ministerio de Comercio) through Executive Decree No. 0408-2012 published in La Gaceta No. 223 of November 19, 2012, under category a) of Article 17 of Law 7210 and its amendments, shall continue to enjoy the benefits provided in subsection d) of Article 20 of the cited law, until the expiration of the term, according to the respective granting agreement of the regime or until the extensions mentioned in Transitorio I of Law No. 8794 expire for Costa Rica. However, once the validity of the exemption in subsection d) of Article 20 of Law 7210 has been surpassed, it is necessary to recall that said exceptional regime survived the entry into force of the Regulatory Law for All Existing Exemptions, their Derogation, and their Exceptions -Law 7293 in force since April 3, 1992-, as Article 2, subsection k) thereof expressly so provided. In several precedents of this Court it had been established that, pursuant to Article 38 of the Immovable Property Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles) -Law No. 7509-, the territorial tax (impuesto territorial) had been expressly repealed, meaning we were in the presence of a new tax which, being subsequent to the territorial tax exemption regime, in application of Article 63 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), was not covered by the exemption contained in numeral 20 subsection d) of the Free Zone Regime Law, nor by the special subjective exemption laws (leyes especiales de exoneración subjetiva) referred to in subsection a) of Article 4 of the Immovable Property Tax Law, whose validity is prior to the new tax, including the case of the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity (Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, ICE). Despite the foregoing, the recent jurisprudential line of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice, contained in Voto No. 476-F-S1-2019 issued by Chamber I at 11:45 a.m. on May 30, 2019 (in the same sense, Votos No. 475-2019, 1849-2019, and No. 816-2018 can be consulted); recognizes the application of the same subjective exemption regime over both taxes, that is, it ends up applying an exemption from the immovable property tax in favor of ICE, historically provided by the legal system for the territorial tax, using the technical concept of "non-subjection (no sujeción)" poorly used by the legislator in Article 4 of Law No. 7509. Therefore, since said jurisprudence is part of the sources of Law applicable to the specific case -Article 7 of the LGAP and Article 185 of the CPCA-, its scope regarding subjective exemptions from the immovable property tax must be respected. Additionally, what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in Voto 7688-15 of 9:00 a.m. on May 27, 2015, cannot be omitted, from which it is reliably inferred that despite what was stated by the State representation, so that the exemption of numeral 20 subsection d) of the Free Zone Regime Law applies to the territorial tax; the Chamber, in Considerando V, kept it in force for the immovable property tax, making both taxes similar only in the applicable exemption regime. This position of the High Constitutional Court is relevant for the specific case in compliance with numeral 8 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial). For all the foregoing reasons, it is imperative to annul the resolution issued at 11:00 a.m. on October 31, 2018, signed by the Municipal Mayor's Office of Alajuela (Alcaldía Municipal de Alajuela), insofar as it does not recognize the exemption from the immovable property tax in favor of the company Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., which, in light of Executive Agreement No. 0408-2012 published in La Gaceta No. 223 of November 19, 2012, presented to the City Council (Ayuntamiento) attached to the proceeding of March 11, 2015, according to processing slip No. 4902, is under the coverage of the privileges of Article 20 of the cited Law. Consequently, the refund of the tax paid since 2013 must proceed, under the terms initially requested, without detriment to the period contained in numeral 43 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures".

On the merits. From a detailed study of the appeal and the challenged administrative act, it is clear to this Chamber that the present controversy centers on the pillar of the subjective exemption (exoneración subjetiva) from the real estate tax (impuesto de bienes inmuebles) contained in Law No. 7509, which the appellant company claims in its favor. In this regard, the appellant is correct that the Free Zone Regime Law (Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas) - Law No. 7210 of November 23, 1990, effective as of December 14, 1990 - created tax incentives for certain companies producing goods and services whose final destination is outside the domestic market and, among these benefits, Article 20, subsection d) included the following:

"Article 20: Companies covered by the free zone regime (régimen de zona franca) shall enjoy the following incentives, with the exceptions indicated below: (...) d) Exemption for a period of ten years from the commencement of operations, from the payment of taxes on capital and net assets, from the payment of the territorial tax (impuesto territorial) and from the real estate transfer tax (impuesto de traspaso de bienes inmuebles)." (Emphasis added).

It is also correct that through the reform introduced by Law No. 8794 of January 22, 2010, to the Free Zone Regime Law (No. 7210), a specific exception regime was included to the ten-year period contained in the article just transcribed; and which is developed in Articles 17, subsection f), 20 bis, 21 bis, and 21 ter, with the following scope:

"Article 17.- Companies that adhere to the free zone regime shall be classified under one or more of the following categories: (...) f) Processing industries that produce, process, or assemble goods, regardless of whether they export or not, that meet the requirements established in Article 21 bis of this Law..." (Emphasis added).

"Article 21 bis.- The beneficiary companies referred to in subsection f) of Article 17 of this Law must meet the following requirements: a) That the project is executed under the protection of the free zone regime, within a strategic sector for the country's development, or that it is established outside the Greater Expanded Metropolitan Area (Gran Área Metropolitana Ampliada, GAMA). For the definition of strategic sectors, the Executive Branch must form a special commission composed of the Minister of Foreign Trade, who shall coordinate it, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Planning and Economic Policy, or their representatives, a representative from the High Technology Center, and a representative from the productive sector, to be chosen from among the Association of Free Zone Companies of Costa Rica, the Costa Rican Coalition of Development Initiatives (Cinde), the Chamber of Exporters, and the Chamber of Industries of Costa Rica. In order to establish the definition of a strategic sector, said special commission must take into consideration the National Development Plan, the prior opinion of the interested sectors, and the following guidelines: projects qualified as having a high contribution to social development and that generate quality employment, those that by incorporating high technologies effectively contribute to the productive modernization of the country, those that develop research and development activities, those that promote innovation and technology transfer, or those that promote the incorporation of clean technologies, integrated waste management, energy savings, and efficient water management. b) That they make new investments in the country, according to the terms established in Article 1 of the law, and that the nature and characteristics of these investments are such that they could be made in another country or transferred to another country. This circumstance shall be presumed if the controlling entity operates abroad, outside of Central America and Panama, at least one processing plant similar to the plant that the beneficiary company of the regime will operate in Costa Rica. For the purposes of this Law, a controlling entity is understood to be the legal entity that has ownership or exercises controlling interest, directly or indirectly, of the beneficiary company established in Costa Rica, or that exercises management power over it, as detailed in the regulations. c) That on the date of submitting the application to the regime, under the protection of subsection f) of Article 17 of this Law, the company is exempt, totally or partially, or is not subject to the payment of income tax (impuesto sobre la renta) in Costa Rica. This requirement will not be met if the project or the activities to be developed by an applicant legal entity under the protection of the regime are the product of the acquisition or absorption, by any title, of a legal entity that was subject to the payment of income tax in Costa Rica or of its main assets. If such acquisition or absorption occurs after the applicant enters the regime, the percentage of exemption from taxes on the importation of machinery, equipment, and raw materials and taxes on profits will be reduced in the same proportion that the acquired assets represent in relation to the total assets of the company. If a company requests admission to the free zone regime under the protection of subsection f) of Article 17, with the purpose of supplying a significant proportion of goods to companies established, in accordance with what is indicated in this article, it will only be necessary that it involves a new investment in the country. Likewise, if a company requests admission to the free zone regime under the protection of subsection f) of Article 17, with the purpose of locating in a zone outside the Greater Expanded Metropolitan Area (GAMA), it will not be necessary to belong to a strategic sector for the country's development. 'Significant proportion' shall be understood as when the companies referred to in this paragraph supply the free zone companies with at least forty percent (40%) of their total sales. If a non-beneficiary company of the free zone regime incentives locates in an industrial park regulated under this Law for the purpose of supplying goods or services to the beneficiary companies located in said park, the provisions established in subsection ch) of Article 17 of this Law for administrator companies shall not be applicable. (Emphasis added).

"Article 21 ter.- The companies indicated in Article 21 bis of this Law shall be subject to the following rules: (...) b) The exemptions and benefits established in subsections a), b), c), ch), d), e), f), h), i), j), and l) of Article 20 of the Law shall apply to them. (...) h) When a company from a strategic sector locates in a zone outside the Greater Expanded Metropolitan Area (GAMA) and maintains one hundred permanent employees, throughout the entire operation of the company, duly reported on payrolls, the benefits indicated in subsections d), g), and 1) of Article 20 of this Law shall apply in their entirety. The computation of the final term of this benefit shall be counted from the date of the start of productive operations of the beneficiary company, provided that said date does not exceed three years from the publication of the respective granting agreement. Likewise, these companies may locate outside an industrial park, provided that the initial investment in new fixed assets is at least five hundred thousand dollars (US$500,000) or its equivalent in national currency and the pertinent customs and tax controls are in place." (Emphasis added).

"Article 21 quáter.- Companies covered by the free zone regime in accordance with subsections b), c), ch), and d) of Article 17 of the Free Zone Regime Law, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, shall continue enjoying the incentives established in subsections a), b), c), ch), d), e), f), g), h), i), and j) of Article 20 of this Law, under the terms provided by said article." (Emphasis added).

Furthermore, Transitorios I and III of the same Law 8784 provide the following regarding this special regime:

"TRANSITORIO I.- The incentives of subsections b), d), f), g), h), and I) of Article 20 of the Free Zone Regime Law, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, and its reforms, shall continue to be enjoyed by the companies indicated in subsection a) of Article 17 of said Law, until the date on which the period provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 27 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, which forms part of the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, approved by Law No. 7475, of December 20, 1994, expires for Costa Rica, including the extensions approved by the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of the World Trade Organization and as long as Costa Rica is eligible and obtains such extensions, at which time the benefits shall cease and become null and void. No later than the same date on which the aforementioned period expires, the other incentives applicable to the beneficiary companies of the free zone regime must have been adapted where pertinent, with respect to the companies indicated in subsection a) of Article 17 of the Free Zone Regime Law, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, to the provisions of the aforementioned Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, in accordance with the regulatory provisions to be issued for this purpose by the Executive Branch." (Emphasis added).

" TRANSITORIO III.- The beneficiary companies indicated in subsection a) of Article 17 of the Free Zone Regime Law, No. 7210, of November 23, 1990, and its reforms, may request a transfer to the category described in subsection f) of the same article, provided they meet the requirements established in subsections a) and c) of Article 21 bis of this Law and make new investments under the terms provided by Article 1 of this same regulatory body. In the event that the company enjoys the benefits under the condition of being outside the industrial park, the minimum investment shall be five hundred thousand United States dollars (US$500,000). In such cases, from the transfer, the periods shall begin to run and the conditions provided for in Articles 21 bis and 21 ter of this Law shall apply." (Emphasis added).

In sum, the company Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., being classified by the Ministry of Commerce through Executive Decree (decreto ejecutivo) No. 0408-2012 published in La Gaceta No. 223 of November 19, 2012, in category a) of Article 17 of Law 7210 and its reforms, shall continue enjoying the benefits provided in subsection d) of Article 20 of the cited law, until the expiration of the period, according to the respective regime granting agreement or until the extensions mentioned in Transitorio I of Law No. 8794 expire for Costa Rica. However, once the validity of the exemption in subsection d) of Article 20 of Law 7210 has been surpassed, it is necessary to recall that said exception regime survived the entry into force of the Regulatory Law of All Current Exemptions, Their Derogation and Their Exceptions (Ley Reguladora de Todas las Exoneraciones Vigentes, su Derogatoria y sus Excepciones) - Law 7293 effective since April 3, 1992 -, since Article 2, subsection k) itself expressly so provided. In several precedents of this Court, it had been ordered that in accordance with Article 38 of the Real Estate Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles) - Law No. 7509 -, the territorial tax had been expressly repealed, so that we were in the presence of a new tax which, being subsequent to the regime of territorial tax exemptions, in application of Article 63 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), was not reached by the exemption contained in Article 20, subsection d) of the Free Zone Regime Law, nor by the special laws of subjective exemption, referred to in subsection a) of Article 4 of the Real Estate Tax Law, whose validity is prior to the new tax, among them the case of the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad). Despite the foregoing, the recent jurisprudential line of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, contained in Voto No. 476-F-S1-2019 issued by Chamber I at 11:45 a.m. on May 30, 2019 (in the same sense, see votes No. 475-2019, 1849-2019, and No. 816-2018); recognizes the application of the same regime of subjective exemption to both taxes, that is, it ends up applying an exemption from the real estate tax in favor of ICE, historically provided by the legal system for the territorial tax, using the technical concept of "non-subjection (no sujeción)" poorly employed by the legislator in Article 4 of Law No. 7509. Therefore, since said jurisprudence is part of the sources of Law applicable to the specific case - Article 7 of the LGAP and Article 185 of the CPCA -, its scope regarding subjective exemptions from the real estate tax must be respected. Additionally, one cannot omit what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in Voto 7688-15 at 9:00 a.m. on May 27, 2015, from which it is reliably inferred that despite what was stated by the State representation, so that the exemption of Article 20, subsection d) of the Free Zone Regime Law applies to the territorial tax; the Chamber, in Considerando V, kept it in force for the real estate tax, making both taxes similar only in the applicable exemption regime. This position of the High Constitutional Court is relevant for the specific case in compliance with Article 8 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial). For all the foregoing, it is necessary to annul the resolution of 11:00 a.m. on October 31, 2018, signed by the Municipal Mayor's Office of Alajuela (Alcaldía Municipal de Alajuela), insofar as it does not recognize the exemption from the real estate tax in favor of the company Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., which, in light of Executive Agreement (acuerdo Ejecutivo) No. 0408-2012 published in La Gaceta No. 223 of November 19, 2012, presented to the City Council attached to the filing of March 11, 2015, according to processing slip (boleta de trámite) No. 4902, is under the coverage of the privileges of Article 20 of the cited Law. Therefore, the refund of the tax paid since 2013 must proceed, under the terms initially requested, without prejudice to the period contained in Article 43 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures.

IV.- On the return of the case file. Having been substantiated in this venue electronically, it is available to the parties to obtain a complete copy containing both the administrative file sent by the Municipal Corporation as well as all the documents that make up this appeal, for which they must provide the electronic storage device (USB drive or compact disc). Likewise, in the event that physical or electronic documentation (plans, photographs, reports, etc.) has been submitted that still remains in the custody of the Office, the person who provided it may withdraw it within a period of 30 business days, in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Regulation on Electronic Case Files before the Judicial Branch (Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial), approved by the Full Court in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in the Judicial Bulletin No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judicial Branch, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.

POR TANTO

The appeal filed is declared with merit, and it is ordered to annul the resolution of 11:00 a.m. on October 31, 2018, signed by the Municipal Mayor's Office of Alajuela, insofar as it decides not to recognize the exemption from the real estate tax in favor of the company Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., by reason of Executive Agreement No. 0408-2012 published in La Gaceta No. 223 of November 19, 2012, presented to the City Council attached to the filing of March 11, 2015, according to processing slip No. 4902.

Therefore, the refund of the tax paid since 2013 must be processed, in the terms requested, without prejudice to the time limit contained in Article 43 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios.

**Francisco José Chaves Torres** **Evelyn Solano Ulloa** **Jorge Leiva Poveda** PROCESO: APELACIÓN EN JERARQUÍA RECURRENTE: PROQUINAL COSTA RICA S.A. RECURRIDA: MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELA

Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Tercera _______________________________________________________________________ PROCESO: APELACIÓN EN JERARQUÍA RECURRENTE: PROQUINAL COSTA RICA S.A.

RECURRIDA: MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELA N° 385-2020 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA, SECCIÓN TERCERA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ, ANEXO A. GOICOECHEA, a las catorce horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del veintinueve de junio del año dos mil veinte.- Conoce este Tribunal, como jerarca impropio del recurso de apelación interpuesto por Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., con cédula jurídica 3-101-300576, representada por Danilo Chaverri Soto, portador de la cédula de identidad 4-083-242, contra la resolución de las 11:00 horas del 31 de octubre del 2018, suscrita por la Alcaldía Municipal de Alajuela. - Redacta el juez Chaves Torres; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.-Antecedentes. De importancia para la resolución de este asunto -utilizando una numeración de foliatura del expediente digital generado en el Escritorio Virtual como un único documento y en orden ascendente-, se tiene como debidamente acreditado lo siguiente: 1) Que el 11 de marzo de 2015, mediante el trámite N°4902 la empresa Proquinal Costa Rica solicita al Ayuntamiento de Alajuela que con base en la sentencia 229-2015 del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y el decreto ejecutivo N°0408-2012 publicado en La Gaceta N°223 del 19 de noviembre del 2012, lo siguiente: "a. (...)tener por revocada la resolución administrativa de las 15:10 hr, del 03 de marzo del 2015 notificada el 05 de marzo del 2015 a las 10:31 hr, en cuando(sic) denegó el reintegro de las sumas indebidamente canceladas por mi representada, por concepto de bienes inmuebles, anteriores al IV trimestre de 2005. b. Que la Municipalidad de Alajuela reconozca en forma expresa la exención que tiene Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., del pago del impuesto de bienes inmuebles, a partir del período fiscal 2013 y hasta por diez años, según acuerdo ejecutivo N°0408-2012, por el que el Ministerio de Comercio Exterior autorizó el traslado de mi representada a la categoría prevista en el inciso f) del artículo 17 de la Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas, clasificándola como industria procesadora. Exención que se encuentra prevista en el inciso d) del artículo 20 de la Ley de Régimen de Zona Franca. c. Que la Municipalidad de Alajuela proceda a reintegrarle a mi representada, los pagos indebidos hechos por Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., por concepto de bienes inmuebles, a partir del año 2013, más sus respectivos intereses, al tipo dispuesto por el artículo 58 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios...". (Ver folios 503 a 506). 2) Que el 31 de octubre del 2018, la Alcaldía Municipal de Alajuela, decide rechazar el reintegro de sumas canceladas y el reconocimiento de la exoneración del impuesto a la empresa gestionante, por considerar que el beneficio de 10 años feneció a partir del período fiscal 2013 para la finca 2-376458-000, y agrega que ya cumplió con la devolución de las sumas fijadas en sentencia N°229-2015 del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. (Ver folio 523). 3) Que el 8 de noviembre del 2018, la representación de la empresa Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., presenta su recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio contra la resolución descrita en el hecho anterior, resultando rechazada la impugnación horizontal a las 10 horas del 3 de diciembre del 2018, el señor Alcalde de Alajuela decide elevar la apelación para ante este Tribunal. (Ver folios 527) II.-Objeto del recurso. Expone la representación apelante que existe una falta de motivación e incongruencia en lo resuelto por la Alcaldía. Señala que siendo conocedora su representada, que el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo no se pronunció sobre la exoneración del impuesto reconocida por el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores en el acuerdo Ejecutivo N°0408-2012 publicado en La Gaceta N°223 del 19 de noviembre del 2012, presentó la gestión del 11 de marzo de 2015, según boleta de trámite N°4902, donde se solicita el reconocimiento por parte de la Municipalidad y sean reintegradas las sumas pagadas desde el 2013. No obstante, agrega que el Ayuntamiento no se pronunció sobre los extremos de su petición; simplemente se limitó a indicar que ella cumplió con la sentencia de ejecución cancelando la devolución del impuesto pagado desde el IV trimestre del año 2005 al IV trimestre del año 2012. Agrega que dicho aspecto no estaba en discusión, ya que lo peticionado fue el reconocimiento de esa misma devolución, pero a partir del 2013, con base en la nueva exoneración otorgada en el acuerdo ejecutivo N°0408-2012. Puntualiza que la petición de exoneración debió acogerse en el tanto el Ministerio de Comercio Exterior autorizó el traslado de su representada a la categoría prevista en el inciso f) del artículo 17 y exenciones del artículo 20 de la Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas, clasificándola como industria procesadora. Adicionalmente, señala que la Municipalidad de Alajuela le hizo la consulta a la Procuraduría General de la República mediante el oficio N°MA-ABI-0296-2015 de fecha 16 de marzo del 2015, y dicho órgano en dictamen vinculante C-079-2017 del 17 de abril de 2017 concluye que las empresas que se trasladen a la categoría descrita en el inciso f) del artículo 17 de la Ley N°7210 y que cumplan los requisitos establecidos en los incisos a) y c) del artículo 21 bis de dicha ley, tienen derecho a los incentivos previstos en el inciso d) del artículo 20 de la Ley N°7210.

III.Sobre el fondo. De un estudio pormenorizado del recurso de apelación y el acto administrativo impugnado, es claro para esta Cámara que la presente controversia gravita en el pilar de la exoneración subjetiva, que alega la empresa apelante a su favor, sobre el impuesto de bienes inmuebles contenido en la Ley N°7509. En este sentido, lleva razón la recurrente que La Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas -Ley No. 7210 del 23 de noviembre de 1990, vigente a partir del 14 de diciembre de 1990-, creó estímulos fiscales a favor de algunas empresas productoras de bienes y servicios, cuyo destino final se encuentra fuera el mercado interno y, dentro de estos beneficios, el artículo 20 inciso d) incluyó los siguientes:

"Artículo 20: Las empresas acogidas al régimen de zona franca gozarán de los siguientes incentivos, con las salvedades que a continuación se indican:(...) d) Exención por un período de diez años a partir de la iniciación de las operaciones, del pago de impuestos sobre el capital y el activo neto, del pago del impuesto territorial y del impuesto de traspaso de bienes inmuebles." (El resaltado es propio).

También es correcto que mediante la reforma introducida por la Ley N°8794 del 22 de enero del 2010, a la Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas (N°7210), se incluye un régimen específico de excepción al plazo decenal contenido en el ordinal recién transcrito; y que se desarrolla en los ordinales 17 inciso f), 20 bis, 21 bis y 21 ter, con el siguiente alcance:

"Artículo 17.- Las empresas que se acojan al régimen de zonas francas se clasificarán bajo una o varias de las siguientes categorías: (...)

• f)Industrias procesadoras que producen, procesan o ensamblan bienes, independientemente de que exporten o no, que reúnan los requisitos establecidos en el artículo 21 bis de esta Ley..."(El resaltado es propio).

"Artículo 21 bis. - Las empresas beneficiarias a que se refiere el inciso f) del artículo 17 de esta Ley deberán cumplir los siguientes requisitos:

• a)Que el proyecto ejecute al amparo del régimen de zonas francas, dentro de un sector estratégico para el desarrollo del país, o que se establezca fuera del Gran Área Metropolitana Ampliada (GAMA). Para la definición de los sectores estratégicos, el Poder Ejecutivo deberá conformar una comisión especial integrada por el ministro de Comercio Exterior, quien la coordinará, el ministro de Hacienda y el ministro de Planificación y Política Económica, o sus representantes, un representante del Centro de Alta Tecnología y un representante del sector productivo, que será elegido entre la Asociación de Empresas de Zonas Francas de Costa Rica, la Coalición Costarricense de Iniciativas de Desarrollo (Cinde), la Cámara de Exportadores y la Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica. A fin de establecer la definición de sector estratégico, la citada comisión especial deberá tomar en consideración el Plan nacional de desarrollo, el criterio previo de los sectores interesados y los siguientes lineamientos: los proyectos calificados de alta contribución al desarrollo social y que generen empleo de calidad, los que por la incorporación de elevadas tecnologías contribuyan efectivamente a la modernización productiva del país, los que desarrollen actividades de investigación y desarrollo, los que promuevan innovación y transferencia tecnológica o los que promuevan la incorporación de tecnologías limpias, gestión integral de desechos, ahorro energético y gestión eficiente de aguas.
• b)Que realicen inversiones nuevas en el país, según los términos establecidos en el artículo 1 de la ley, y que la naturaleza y las características de esas inversiones sean tales que podrían efectuarse en otro país o trasladarse a otro país. Se presumirá esta circunstancia si la entidad controladora opera en el extranjero, fuera de Centroamérica y Panamá, al menos una planta procesadora similar a la planta que operará la empresa beneficiaria del régimen en Costa Rica. Para los efectos de esta Ley, se entiende por entidad controladora la entidad jurídica que tiene la propiedad o ejerce el control accionario, directa o indirectamente, de la empresa beneficiaria establecida en Costa Rica, o que ejerce poder de dirección sobre ella, conforme lo detalle el reglamento.
• c)Que a la fecha de presentar la solicitud al régimen, al amparo del inciso f) del artículo 17 de esta Ley, la empresa esté exenta, total o parcialmente, o no esté sujeta al pago del impuesto sobre la renta en Costa Rica. No se cumplirá este requisito si el proyecto o las actividades que desarrollará una persona jurídica solicitante al amparo del régimen son producto de la adquisición o absorción, por cualquier título, de una persona jurídica que sí estaba sujeta al pago del impuesto sobre la renta en Costa Rica o de sus principales activos. Si tal adquisición o absorción se produce luego de que el solicitante ingresa al régimen, se le reducirá el porcentaje de exoneración de los tributos sobre importación de maquinaria, equipo y materias primas y los tributos sobre las utilidades en la misma proporción que representen los activos adquiridos en relación con los activos totales de la empresa. Si una empresa solicita acogerse al régimen de zonas francas al amparo del inciso f) del artículo 17, con el propósito de proveer una proporción significativa de bienes a empresas establecidas, conforme a lo indicado en el presente artículo, únicamente será necesario que se trate de una inversión nueva en el país. Asimismo, si una empresa solicita acogerse al régimen de zonas francas al amparo del inciso f) del artículo 17, con el propósito de instalarse en una zona ubicada fuera del Gran Área Metropolitana Ampliada (GAMA), no será necesario que pertenezca a un sector estratégico para el desarrollo del país. Por "proporción significativa" se entenderá cuando las empresas a las que se refiere este párrafo, provean a las empresas de zonas francas al menos un cuarenta por ciento (40%) de sus ventas totales. Si una empresa no beneficiaria de los incentivos del régimen de zonas francas se instala en un parque industrial de los regulados en esta Ley con el objeto de proveer bienes o servicios a las empresas beneficiarias instaladas en dicho parque, no será aplicable lo establecido en el inciso ch) del artículo 17 de esta Ley para las empresas administradoras.)(El resaltado es propio).

"Artículo 21 ter. - Las empresas indicadas en el artículo 21 bis de esta Ley estarán sujetas a las siguientes reglas:(...)

• b)Se les aplicarán las exenciones y los beneficios establecidos en los incisos a), b), c), ch), d), e), f), h), i), j) y l) del artículo 20 de la Ley.

(...)

• h)Cuando la empresa de un sector estratégico se instale en una zona fuera del Gran Área Metropolitana Ampliada (GAMA) y mantenga cien empleados permanentes, durante toda la operación de la empresa, debidamente reportados en planillas, se le aplicarán íntegramente los beneficios indicados en los incisos d), g) y 1) del artículo 20 de esta Ley. El cómputo del plazo final de este beneficio se contará a partir de la fecha de inicio de las operaciones productivas de la empresa beneficiaria, siempre que dicha fecha no exceda de tres años a partir de la publicación del respectivo acuerdo de otorgamiento. Asimismo, estas empresas podrán instalarse fuera de un parque industrial, siempre y cuando la inversión inicial en activos fijos nuevos sea al menos de quinientos mil dólares (US$500.000) o su equivalente en moneda nacional y se cuente con los controles aduaneros y fiscales pertinentes." (El resaltado es propio).

"Artículo 21 quáter.- Las empresas acogidas al régimen de zonas francas conforme a los incisos b), c), ch) y d) del artículo 17 de la Ley de régimen de zonas francas, N.° 7210, de 23 de noviembre de 1990, continuarán disfrutando de los incentivos establecidos en los incisos a), b), c), ch), d), e), f), g), h), i) y j) del artículo 20 de esta Ley, en los términos dispuestos por dicho artículo." (El resaltado es propio).

A mayor abundamiento, los transitorios I y III de la misma Ley 8784 dispone sobre este régimen especial, lo siguiente:

"TRANSITORIO I.-Los incentivos de los incisos b), d), f), g), h) y I) del artículo 20 de la Ley de régimen de zonas francas, N.° 7210, de 23 de noviembre de 1990, y sus reformas, se continuarán disfrutando por parte de las empresas indicadas en el inciso a) del artículo 17 de dicha Ley, hasta la fecha en que venza para Costa Rica el plazo previsto en el párrafo 4 del artículo 27 del Acuerdo sobre subvenciones y medidas compensatorias que forma parte del Acta final en que se incorporan los resultados de la Ronda Uruguay de negociaciones comerciales multilaterales, aprobada mediante la Ley N.° 7475, de 20 de diciembre de 1994, incluidas las prórrogas aprobadas por el Comité de Subsidios y Medidas Compensatorias de la Organización Mundial del Comercio y en tanto Costa Rica sea elegible y obtenga dichas prórrogas, momento en el cual cesarán y se dejarán sin efecto los beneficios. A más tardar a partir de la misma fecha en que venza el plazo antes indicado, los demás incentivos aplicables a las empresas beneficiarias del régimen de zonas francas deberán haberse adecuado en lo pertinente, respecto de las empresas indicadas en el inciso a) del artículo 17 de la Ley de régimen de zonas francas, N.° 7210, de 23 de noviembre de 1990, a las disposiciones del mencionado Acuerdo sobre subvenciones y medidas compensatorias, conforme a las disposiciones reglamentarias que para el efecto dictará el Poder Ejecutivo." (El resaltado es propio).

" TRANSITORIO III.- Las empresas beneficiarias indicadas en el inciso a) del artículo 17 de la Ley de régimen de zonas francas, N.° 7210, de 23 de noviembre de 1990, y sus reformas, podrán solicitar trasladarse a la categoría descrita en el inciso f) del mismo artículo, siempre que cumplan los requisitos establecidos en los incisos a) y c) del artículo 21 bis de esta Ley y realicen inversiones nuevas en los términos dispuestos por el artículo primero de este mismo cuerpo normativo. En caso de que la empresa disfrute de los beneficios en condición fuera del parque industrial la inversión mínima será de quinientos mil dólares estadounidenses (US$500.000). En tales casos, a partir del traslado empezarán a correr los plazos y se aplicarán las condiciones previstas en los artículos 21 bis y 21 ter de esta Ley."(El resaltado es propio).

En suma, la empresa Proquinal Costa Rica S.A. al estar clasificada por el Ministerio de Comercio mediante decreto ejecutivo N°0408-2012 publicado en La Gaceta N°223 del 19 de noviembre del 2012, en la categoría a) del artículo 17 de la Ley 7210 y sus reformas, continuará disfrutando de los beneficios previstos en el inciso d) del artículo 20 de la ley de cita, hasta el vencimiento del plazo, según el respectivo acuerdo de otorgamiento del régimen o hasta que venzan para Costa Rica las prórrogas mencionadas en el Transitorio I de la Ley N° 8794. Ahora bien, superada la vigencia de la exoneración del inciso d) del artículo 20 de la Ley 7210, es menester recordar que dicho régimen de excepción sobrevivió a la entrada en vigencia de la Ley Reguladora de Todas las Exoneraciones Vigentes, su Derogatoria y sus Excepciones -Ley 7293 vigente desde el 3 de abril de 1992-, pues el mismo artículo 2 inciso k) así lo dispuso expresamente. En varios precedentes de este Tribunal se había dispuesto que conforme al artículo 38 de la Ley del Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles -Ley N°7509-, el impuesto territorial había quedado expresamente derogado, de modo que estábamos en presencia de un nuevo tributo que, al ser posterior al régimen de exoneraciones del impuesto territorial, en aplicación del artículo 63 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, no era alcanzado por la exoneración contenida en el numeral 20 inciso d) de la Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas y tampoco por las leyes especiales de exoneración subjetiva, a las que hace referencia el inciso a) del artículo 4 de la Ley de Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles, cuya vigencia sea anterior al nuevo tributo, entre ellas el caso del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad. Pese a lo expuesto, la reciente línea jurisprudencial de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, contenida en el Voto N°476-F-S1-2019 dictado por la Sala I a las 11:45 horas del 30 de mayo del 2019 (en igual sentido se pueden consultar los votos N°475-2019, 1849-2019 y N° 816-2018); reconoce la aplicación del mismo régimen de exoneración subjetiva sobre ambos tributos, es decir, termina aplicando una exoneración del impuesto de bienes inmuebles a favor del ICE, dispuesta históricamente por el ordenamiento jurídico para el impuesto territorial, utilizando el concepto técnico de "no sujeción" mal empleado por el legislador en el artículo 4 de la Ley N°7509. Por ello, siendo dicha jurisprudencia parte de las fuentes del Derecho aplicable al caso concreto -7 de la LGAP y 185 CPCA-, se deben respetar sus alcances sobre las exoneraciones subjetivas al impuesto de bienes inmuebles. Adicionalmente, tampoco se puede omitir lo resuelto por la Sala Constitucional en el Voto 7688-15 de las 9:00 del 27 de mayo del 2015, del cual se desprende fehacientemente que pese a lo manifestado por la representación Estatal, para que la exoneración del numeral 20 inciso d) de la Ley de Régimen de Zonas Francas se aplique al impuesto territorial; la Sala en el considerando V, lo mantuvo vigente al impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles, asemejando ambos tributos únicamente en el régimen de exoneración aplicable. Esta posición del Alto Tribunal Constitucional resulta relevante para el caso concreto en apego al ordinal 8 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial. Por todo lo anterior, se impone anular la resolución de las 11:00 horas del 31 de octubre del 2018, suscrita por la Alcaldía Municipal de Alajuela, en el tanto no reconoce la exoneración del impuesto de bienes inmuebles a favor de la empresa Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., que a la luz del acuerdo Ejecutivo N°0408-2012 publicado en La Gaceta N°223 del 19 de noviembre del 2012, presentado ante el Ayuntamiento adjunto a la gestión del 11 de marzo de 2015, según boleta de trámite N°4902, se encuentra bajo la cobertura de los privilegios del artículo 20 de la Ley de cita. Con lo que se debe proceder con la devolución del tributo cancelado desde el 2013 y en los términos solicitados inicialmente, sin demérito del plazo contenido en el ordinal 43 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios.

IV.- De la devolución del expediente. Al haberse sustanciado esta sede en forma electrónica, queda a disposición de las partes obtener una copia integral que contiene tanto el expediente administrativo remitido por la Corporación Municipal así como la totalidad de las piezas que conforman la presente alzada, para lo cual deberá aportar el dispositivo electrónico de almacenamiento (llave maya o disco compacto). Asimismo, en caso que hubiere ingresado documentación física o electrónica (planos, fotografías, informes, etc.) que permanezca aún en custodia el Despacho, podrá retirarla quien la aportó en un plazo de 30 días hábiles, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 12 del Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial, aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión n.° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial n.° 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión n.° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.

POR TANTO

Se declara con lugar el recurso de apelación presentado, y se impone anular la resolución de las 11:00 horas del 31 de octubre del 2018, suscrita por la Alcaldía Municipal de Alajuela, en el tanto decide no reconocer la exoneración del impuesto de bienes inmuebles a favor de la empresa Proquinal Costa Rica S.A., en razón del acuerdo Ejecutivo N°0408-2012 publicado en La Gaceta N°223 del 19 de noviembre del 2012, presentado ante el Ayuntamiento adjunto a la gestión del 11 de marzo de 2015, según boleta de trámite N°4902. Con lo que se debe proceder con la devolución del tributo cancelado desde el 2013, en los términos solicitados, sin demérito del plazo contenido en el ordinal 43 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios.

Francisco José Chaves Torres Evelyn Solano Ulloa Jorge Leiva Poveda PROCESO: APELACIÓN EN JERARQUÍA RECURRENTE: PROQUINAL COSTA RICA S.A.

RECURRIDA: MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELA *OFT47WRMTLQU61*