{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-125232", "citation": "Res. 00001-2009 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección IX", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Base imponible para el impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles tras la constitución de usufructos", "title_en": "Tax base for property tax upon constitution of usufructs", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección IX, resuelve una demanda contra la Municipalidad de Los Chiles por la determinación de la base imponible del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles aplicada a una finca sobre la que se constituyeron derechos de usufructo. La parte actora, nuda propietaria y usufructuaria parcial, cuestionó que el municipio utilizara como base imponible el valor conjunto de los usufructos, en lugar de un valor proporcional a su participación, y que el valor de mercado del inmueble fuera inferior al valor registral empleado. El Tribunal desestima la demanda. Sostiene que la constitución y traslado de usufructos configura un “traslado de dominio” en los términos del artículo 14.a) de la Ley 7509, operando una modificación automática de la base imponible. Rechaza también la pretensión de utilizar el valor de mercado, reiterando que la base imponible se determina conforme al valor registrado ante la administración tributaria municipal, y confirma las actuaciones del municipio demandado.", "summary_en": "The Administrative Court, Section IX, ruled on a lawsuit against the Municipality of Los Chiles regarding the tax base for the Property Tax applied to a property in which usufruct rights were established. The plaintiff, the bare owner and partial usufructuary, objected to the municipality's use of the combined value of the usufructs as the tax base instead of a proportional value, and argued that the property's market value was lower than the registered value used. The Court dismissed the claim. It held that the creation and transfer of usufruct rights constitutes a \"transfer of ownership\" under Article 14.a) of Law 7509, triggering an automatic modification of the tax base. It also rejected the market value argument, reaffirming that the tax base is determined by the value registered with the municipal tax authority, and upheld the municipality's actions.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección IX", "date": "2009", "year": "2009", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles", "base imponible", "usufructo", "nuda propiedad", "traslado de dominio", "valor registral", "modificación automática", "Ley 7509" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 14", "law": "Ley 7509" }, { "article": "Art. 9", "law": "Ley 7509" }, { "article": "Art. 6", "law": "Ley 7509" }, { "article": "Art. 21", "law": "Decreto Ejecutivo 27601-H" } ], "keywords_es": [ "Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles", "Ley 7509", "base imponible", "usufructo", "nuda propiedad", "traslado de dominio", "valor registral", "Municipalidad de Los Chiles", "modificación automática", "Decreto 27601-H" ], "keywords_en": [ "Property Tax", "Law 7509", "tax base", "usufruct", "bare ownership", "transfer of ownership", "registered value", "Municipality of Los Chiles", "automatic modification", "Decree 27601-H" ], "excerpt_es": "Así las cosas, al constituirse de manera autónoma tales usufructos y a su vez al trasladarse, se configuró el supuesto previsto por el inciso a) del artículo 14 de la ley No. 7509, y por ende, se cumplió el precepto normativo previsto para que operara una modificación automática al valor del inmueble [...] y por ende, se modificó la base imponible para el cálculo del impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles para dicha finca, conforme en derecho corresponde; pues se ha basado dicho cálculo en el valor registralmente asignado para esa finca ante el Registro Nacional [...] Por ende, poca o ninguna injerencia tiene en el resultado de esta litis que el valor de mercado sea inferior [...] al valor registral establecido para la finca, pues es lo cierto que el cálculo del tributo no se efectúa con sustento en aquél, sino en el asignado ante la administración tributaria.", "excerpt_en": "Thus, by autonomously constituting such usufructs and in turn transferring them, the situation provided for in subsection a) of Article 14 of Law No. 7509 was configured, and therefore the regulatory precept for an automatic modification of the property's value to take effect was fulfilled [...] and consequently, the tax base for calculating the property tax for said property was modified, as legally required; since said calculation has been based on the value assigned in the National Registry [...] Therefore, the fact that the market value is lower [...] than the registered value established for the property has little or no bearing on the outcome of this litigation, as the truth is that the tax is not calculated based on the former, but on the value assigned before the tax administration.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The Court denied the lawsuit and upheld the tax base used by the Municipality of Los Chiles, ruling that the establishment of usufructs constitutes a transfer of ownership that automatically modifies the property tax base.", "summary_es": "El Tribunal rechazó la demanda y confirmó la base imponible utilizada por la Municipalidad de Los Chiles, determinando que la constitución de usufructos constituye un traslado de dominio que modifica automáticamente la base imponible del impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "By autonomously constituting such usufructs and in turn transferring them, the situation provided for in subsection a) of Article 14 of Law No. 7509 was configured, and therefore the regulatory precept for an automatic modification of the property's value to take effect was fulfilled.", "quote_es": "Al constituirse de manera autónoma tales usufructos y a su vez al trasladarse, se configuró el supuesto previsto por el inciso a) del artículo 14 de la ley No. 7509, y por ende, se cumplió el precepto normativo previsto para que operara una modificación automática al valor del inmueble." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "The fact that the market value is lower than the registered value established for the property has little or no bearing on the outcome of this litigation, as the truth is that the tax is not calculated based on the former, but on the value assigned before the tax administration.", "quote_es": "Poca o ninguna injerencia tiene en el resultado de esta litis que el valor de mercado sea inferior [...] al valor registral establecido para la finca, pues es lo cierto que el cálculo del tributo no se efectúa con sustento en aquél, sino en el asignado ante la administración tributaria." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-26598", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 7509 Art. 14" }, { "target_id": "norm-44362", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Decreto Ejecutivo 27601-H Art. 21" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-125232", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-26598", "norm_num": "7509", "norm_name": "Ley de Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "09/05/1995" }, { "doc_id": "norm-28326", "norm_num": "7729", "norm_name": "Reforma de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "15/12/1997" }, { "doc_id": "norm-44362", "norm_num": "27601", "norm_name": "Reglamento a la Ley de Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo", "norm_fecha": "12/01/1999" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“IV. El punto medular del presente asunto,\r\nconsiste en determinar cuál es la base imponible aplicable para la\r\ndeterminación del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles para la finca del partido de\r\nAlajuela con matrícula de folio real No. 170745, de cuya nuda propiedad y un\r\nporcentaje del usufructo es titular la accionante,\r\nasí como la procedencia o no del cobro individualizado para dicho\r\nimpuesto. Al respecto, resulta\r\nimportante traer a colación lo dispuesto por el capítulo tercero, artículo 6 de\r\nla ley No.\r\n7509 Ley de Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, que a la letra dispone, en lo que\r\ninteresa a efecto de esta litis: “ARTÍCULO 6.- Sujetos pasivos. Son sujetos pasivos de este impuesto: a) Los propietarios con título inscrito en el\r\nRegistro Público de la Propiedad. b) Los propietarios de finca, que no\r\nestén inscritos en el Registro Público de la Propiedad. (…) d) Los ocupantes o los poseedores con título,\r\ninscribible o no inscribible en el Registro Público, con más de un año\r\ny que se encuentren en las siguientes condiciones: poseedores, empresarios agrícolas, usufructuarios,\r\naparceros rurales, esquilmos, prestatarios gratuitos de tierras y ocupantes en\r\nprecario. En el último caso, el propietario o el poseedor original del inmueble\r\npodrá solicitar, a la Municipalidad que la obligación\r\ntributaria se le traslade al actual poseedor, a partir del período fiscal\r\nsiguiente al de su solicitud, mediante procedimiento que establecerá el\r\nReglamento de esta Ley. (…) De conformidad con este artículo, la definición del sujeto pasivo no prejuzga sobre\r\nla titularidad del bien sujeto a imposición. En caso de conflicto, la obligación tributaria se exigirá al sujeto\r\nque conserve el usufructo del inmueble, bajo cualquier forma.” Del artículo transcrito\r\nse deriva con meridiana claridad que en tratándose del tributo que nos ocupa,\r\nla carga de la obligación tributaria recae, en primera instancia, sobre el\r\npropietario registral del inmueble de marras, es\r\ndecir, sobre aquél sujeto de derecho que aparezca inscrito con tal carácter en\r\nel Registro Público de Bienes Inmuebles, según establece el inciso a) del texto\r\nlegal citado. En ese tanto, la\r\nobligación recae primigeniamente sobre la empresa accionante, quien registralmente\r\naparece como propietaria del inmueble de marras, según ha quedado debidamente\r\nacreditado en el elenco de hechos probados que dan sustento al dictado de esta\r\nresolución. Sin embargo, la finca que\r\nnos ocupa se encuentra sujeta a una condición jurídica particular, y es que de la\r\nmisma se traspasó en favor de varios sujetos el derecho de usufructo,\r\nconservando la accionante la condición de nuda\r\npropietaria del inmueble y además la calidad de usufructuaria sobre un\r\nporcentaje del mismo, según se deriva de un estudio detallado de los\r\nautos. La normativa transcrita señala\r\nque en tales supuestos la obligación puede ser trasladada por parte del\r\npropietario registral, mediante solicitud formulada\r\nal municipio, a cargo de los poseedores actuales del inmueble, supuesto que\r\nsegún el texto legal abarca a los usufructuarios, y que dicha autorización\r\nmunicipal surtirá efecto para el período siguiente a la formulación de tal\r\nrequerimiento. A ello accedió la\r\ncorporación municipal demandada, según es el propio dicho de la actora, al\r\ndesglosar el porcentaje del impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles que le corresponde\r\ncubrir a la accionante, de manera indepediente\r\nal que corre a cargo de los demás usufructuarios del inmueble. IV. En lo que corresponde a la base imponible\r\npara el cobro del impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles, señala en su artículo 9º de la ley No. 7509, en lo que\r\nresulta de interés: “ARTÍCULO\r\n9.- Base imponible para calcular el impuesto. La base imponible para el\r\ncálculo del impuesto será el valor del inmueble registrado en la Administración Tributaria,\r\nal 1 de enero del año correspondiente. Se\r\nentenderá por Administración Tributaria el órgano administrativo municipal a\r\ncargo de la percepción y fiscalización de los tributos.” (Así reformado por el artículo 1º, inciso\r\nc), de la ley No.7729\r\ndel 15 de diciembre de 1997). Al\r\namparo de la disposición legal de cita, la base imponible para el cálculo del\r\nimpuesto será, en tesis de principio, el valor registrado ante la\r\nadministración tributaria -concepto equivalente al respectivo municipio, según\r\nel artículo 1 del decreto ejecutivo No. \r\n27601-H-, como valor total y unitario del inmueble sujeto al pago del\r\ntributo. Sin embargo, dicha base imponible puede ser objeto de modificaciones,\r\nsegún lo preceptuado por el artículo 14 de la ley No. 7509, el cual\r\nseñala: “ARTÍCULO\r\n14.- Modificación automática de la base imponible de un inmueble. La\r\nbase imponible de un inmueble será modificada en forma automática por:\n\r\n\r\n\na) El mayor valor\r\nconsignado en instrumento público con motivo de un traslado de dominio.\n\r\n\r\n\nb) La constitución de\r\nun gravamen hipotecario o de cédulas hipotecarias. En este caso, la nueva base\r\nimponible será el monto por el que responda el inmueble, si fuere mayor que el\r\nvalor registrado. En caso de varias hipotecas, el valor de la suma de sus\r\ndistintos grados constituirá la base imponible, de manera que el monto por el\r\ncual responden todas las hipotecas no canceladas en forma conjunta será la\r\nnueva base imponible, siempre que sea una suma mayor que el valor registrado.\n\r\n\r\n\nc) La rectificación\r\nde cabida y la reunión de fincas. A la reunión de fincas se le aplicará la\r\nadición de los valores registrados de cada una de las fincas reunidas.\n\r\n\r\n\nd) El mayor valor que\r\nlos sujetos pasivos reconozcan formalmente mediante la declaración establecida\r\nen el artículo 3 de esta Ley.\n\r\n\r\n\ne)\r\nEl fraccionamiento de un inmueble.\n\r\n\r\n\nf) La construcción o\r\nadición, en los inmuebles, de mejoras apreciables que requieran permiso de\r\nconstrucción, cuya tasación modificará la base imponible, siempre que\r\nrepresenten un valor igual o superior al veinte por ciento (20%) del valor\r\nregistrado. En los terrenos dedicados a la actividad agropecuaria o\r\nagroindustrial no se tomarán en cuenta, para efectos de valoración, las mejoras\r\no construcciones efectuadas en ellos, en beneficio de los trabajadores de\r\ndichas actividades o de la producción.”\n\r\n\r\n\n(Así reformado por el\r\nartículo 1º, inciso f), de la\r\n ley No.7729 de 15 de diciembre de 1997)\n\r\n\r\n\n(Así modificada su\r\nnumeración por el artículo 2, inciso c), de la ley No.7729 de 15 de\r\ndiciembre de 1997, que lo trasladó del 12 al 14). Así\r\nmismo, señala el artículo 21 del decreto ejecutivo No. 27601-H Reglamento a la\r\nLey de Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, en lo que atañe a la modificación\r\nautomática de la base imponible para el cálculo del impuesto: “Artículo 21.- Modificaciones automaticas. En los casos de modificaciones automáticas\r\nseñalados en los incisos a, b, c, d y e del artículo 14 de la Ley, cuando el\r\nnuevo valor es mayor al valor registrado, servirán de base imponible a partir\r\ndel período fiscal siguiente al que se produzcan las modificaciones, sin\r\nnecesidad de notificación al interesado. \r\nEn relación con la rectificación de cabida, para establecer el nuevo\r\nvalor se utilizará el área aportada por el plano catastrado, multiplicada por\r\nel valor unitario registrado. Para los\r\nefectos de lo señalado en el inciso e) del artículo 14 se considera\r\nfraccionamiento tanto la segregación como la división de una finca. En el\r\nfraccionamiento se aplicará la proporcionalidad del valor registrado de la\r\nfinca madre, según el área segregada o dividida.” Con respecto al denominado traslado de\r\ndominio mediante escritura o instrumento público, establecido en el inciso a)\r\ndel artículo 14 de la referida ley, debe indicarse que el Dominio o propiedad\r\nabsoluta sobre la cosa, como instituto jurídico comprende los derechos de\r\nposesión, usufructo, transformación y enajenación, defensa y exclusión,\r\nrestitución e indemnización sobre el inmueble, pudiendo el usufructo adquirirse\r\npor cualesquiera de los medios previstos por el ordenamiento jurídico vigente\r\npara el traslado del dominio sobre la cosa (artículos 264 y 335 del Código\r\nCivil). El valor del inmueble\r\nestablecido por el municipio como base imponible para efecto de determinar el\r\nmonto del impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles que corresponde cancelar a la actora,\r\nresulta ser, según señala ésta en su libelo de deducción de la demanda, el\r\nvalor conjunto de los usufructos constituidos sobre el inmueble, con lo cual no\r\nse encuentra de acuerdo, criterio del cual discrepa este Tribunal. Véase que efectivamente al constituirse los\r\nderechos de usufructo sobre el inmueble que nos ocupa, de manera separada del\r\ndominio propiamente tal, y al trasladarse a otros sujetos diversos de la\r\nempresa que figura como nuda propietaria registral,\r\nse dió el traslado de uno de los atributos que lo\r\nconforman, siendo el usufructo parte del dominio o propiedad absoluta y al\r\ntrasladarse a un sujeto diverso del propietario registral\r\ndel bien cualesquiera de los derechos que lo conforman, su titularidad deviene\r\nen limitada o imperfecta, según se deriva del numeral 265 del Código Civil\r\nindicado supra, el cual dispone, en lo que interesa: \"ARTÍCULO 265- Cuando no corresponden al\r\ndueño todos los derechos que comprende el dominio pleno, la\r\npropiedad es imperfecta o limitada.(...)\" Así las cosas,\r\nal constituirse de manera autónoma tales usufructos y a su vez al trasladarse,\r\nse configuró el supuesto previsto por el inciso a) del artículo 14 de la ley No. 7509, y por ende,\r\nse cumplió el precepto normativo previsto para que operara una modificación\r\nautomática al valor del inmueble del partido de Alajuela inscrito con matrícula\r\nde folio real No. 170745, y por ende, se modificó la base imponible para el\r\ncálculo del impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles para dicha finca, conforme en derecho\r\ncorresponde; pues se ha basado dicho cálculo en el valor registralmente\r\nasignado para esa finca ante el Registro Nacional, según admite la misma actora\r\nen su libelo de formalización de la acción y se ha tenido por debidamente\r\ndemostrado en el elenco de hechos probados que dan sustento a esta\r\nresolución. Por ende, poca o ninguna\r\ninjerencia tiene en el resultado de esta litis que el valor de mercado sea\r\ninferior -según sostiene la accionante-, al valor registral establecido para la finca, pues es lo cierto que\r\nel cálculo del tributo no se efectúa con sustento en aquél, sino en el asignado\r\nante la administración tributaria. Además, valga acotar para efectos\r\ntributarios, que al tenor de lo indicado por el artículo 6 de la Ley de\r\nImpuesto de Bienes Inmuebles, cada uno de los usufructuarios es responsable\r\nante la\r\n Administración Tributaria de cubrir el monto de dicho\r\nimpuesto que le corresponda, en atención al porcentaje que en calidad de\r\ntitular le corresponda sobre el usufructo del inmueble Como corolario de lo anterior, al no llevar\r\nrazón en sus argumentaciones la parte actora, debe este Tribunal proceder a\r\nrechazar en todos sus extremos la demanda interpuesta, como en efecto se\r\ndispone, confirmándose así las actuaciones impugnadas que fueron desplegadas por\r\nla Municipalidad de Los Chiles. Igual\r\nsuerte debe correr las pretensiones de repetición de lo pagado planteadas por\r\nla accionante en su libelo de deducción de la\r\ndemanda, de conformidad con las consideraciones anteriormente expuestas. “", "body_en_text": "IV. The central point of this matter is to determine which taxable base (base imponible) is applicable for the determination of the Property Tax (Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles) for the property in the Alajuela registry with real estate folio number 170745, of which the plaintiff holds the bare ownership (nuda propiedad) and a percentage of the usufruct (usufructo), as well as the appropriateness or not of individualized collection for said tax. In this regard, it is important to cite the provisions of chapter three, article 6 of Law No. 7509, the Property Tax Law (Ley de Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles), which literally states, insofar as it is relevant to this litigation: “ARTICLE 6.- Taxable persons (Sujetos pasivos). The taxable persons of this tax are: a) Owners with title registered in the Public Property Registry (Registro Público de la Propiedad). b) Owners of property who are not registered in the Public Property Registry. (…) d) Occupants or possessors with title, registerable or not in the Public Registry, with more than one year and who are in the following conditions: possessors, agricultural entrepreneurs, usufructuaries (usufructuarios), rural sharecroppers, emblements, gratuitous land borrowers, and precarious occupants. In the latter case, the owner or the original possessor of the property may request the Municipality to transfer the tax obligation to the current possessor, starting from the fiscal period following the request, by means of a procedure to be established by the Regulation of this Law. (…) In accordance with this article, the definition of the taxable person does not prejudge the ownership of the asset subject to taxation. In case of conflict, the tax obligation shall be demanded from the person who retains the usufruct of the property, in any form.” From the transcribed article, it is clearly evident that in relation to the tax at hand, the burden of the tax obligation falls, in the first instance, on the recorded owner (propietario registral) of the property in question, that is, on that legal subject who appears registered with such status in the Public Registry of Real Estate, as established in subsection a) of the cited legal text. To that extent, the obligation initially falls on the plaintiff company, which appears on record as the owner of the property in question, as has been duly accredited in the list of proven facts that support the issuance of this resolution. However, the property that concerns us is subject to a particular legal condition, and that is that the right of usufruct was transferred from it in favor of several subjects, with the plaintiff retaining the status of bare owner (nuda propietaria) of the property and also the quality of usufructuary over a percentage thereof, as derived from a detailed study of the proceedings. The transcribed regulations indicate that in such cases, the obligation can be transferred by the recorded owner, through a request made to the municipality, to the current possessors of the property, a scenario that according to the legal text encompasses the usufructuaries, and that said municipal authorization will take effect for the period following the formulation of such request. The defendant municipal corporation agreed to this, according to the plaintiff's own statement, by itemizing the percentage of the property tax that the plaintiff is responsible for covering, independently from that which is the responsibility of the other usufructuaries of the property.\n\nIV. Regarding the taxable base for the property tax collection, Article 9 of Law No. 7509 states, in what is of interest: “ARTICLE 9.- Taxable base for calculating the tax (Base imponible para calcular el impuesto). The taxable base for calculating the tax shall be the value of the property registered with the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), as of January 1st of the corresponding year. Tax Administration shall be understood as the municipal administrative body in charge of the collection and oversight of taxes.” (As reformed by Article 1, subsection c), of Law No. 7729 of December 15, 1997). Under the cited legal provision, the taxable base for calculating the tax will be, in principle, the value registered with the tax administration—a concept equivalent to the respective municipality, according to Article 1 of Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 27601-H—as the total and unit value of the property subject to tax payment. However, said taxable base can be subject to modifications, according to the provisions of Article 14 of Law No. 7509, which states: “ARTICLE 14.- Automatic modification of the taxable base of a property (Modificación automática de la base imponible de un inmueble). The taxable base of a property shall be automatically modified by:\n\na) The higher value recorded in a public instrument due to a transfer of ownership (traslado de dominio).\n\nb) The constitution of a mortgage lien or mortgage certificates. In this case, the new taxable base shall be the amount for which the property is liable, if it is greater than the registered value. In the case of several mortgages, the value of the sum of their different degrees shall constitute the taxable base, so that the amount for which all uncancelled mortgages are jointly liable shall be the new taxable base, provided it is a sum greater than the registered value.\n\nc) The correction of area (rectificación de cabida) and the consolidation of properties. The addition of the registered values of each of the consolidated properties shall apply to the consolidation of properties.\n\nd) The higher value that the taxable persons formally acknowledge through the declaration established in Article 3 of this Law.\n\ne) The subdivision (fraccionamiento) of a property.\n\nf) The construction or addition, on properties, of appreciable improvements that require a construction permit, whose appraisal shall modify the taxable base, provided they represent a value equal to or greater than twenty percent (20%) of the registered value. On lands dedicated to agricultural or agro-industrial activity, improvements or constructions made on them for the benefit of the workers of said activities or of production will not be taken into account for valuation purposes.”\n\n(As reformed by Article 1, subsection f), of Law No. 7729 of December 15, 1997)\n\n(As its numbering was modified by Article 2, subsection c), of Law No. 7729 of December 15, 1997, which moved it from 12 to 14). Likewise, Article 21 of Executive Decree No. 27601-H, Regulation to the Property Tax Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles), states, regarding the automatic modification of the taxable base for calculating the tax: “Article 21.- Automatic modifications. In the cases of automatic modifications indicated in subsections a, b, c, d, and e of Article 14 of the Law, when the new value is greater than the registered value, they shall serve as the taxable base starting from the fiscal period following the one in which the modifications occur, without the need for notification to the interested party. In relation to the correction of area, to establish the new value, the area provided by the cadastral map (plano catastrado) shall be used, multiplied by the registered unit value. For the purposes of what is indicated in subsection e) of Article 14, subdivision (fraccionamiento) is considered both the segregation and the division of a property. In the subdivision, the proportionality of the registered value of the mother property shall be applied, according to the segregated or divided area.” Regarding the so-called transfer of ownership by deed or public instrument, established in subsection a) of Article 14 of the referenced law, it should be noted that ownership (Dominio) or absolute property over the thing, as a legal institute, comprises the rights of possession, usufruct, transformation and alienation, defense and exclusion, restitution, and indemnification over the property, with usufruct capable of being acquired by any of the means provided by the current legal system for the transfer of ownership over the thing (Articles 264 and 335 of the Civil Code). The value of the property established by the municipality as the taxable base for the purpose of determining the amount of property tax that the plaintiff must pay, turns out to be, as indicated by the latter in its statement of claim, the joint value of the usufructs constituted on the property, with which it does not agree, a criterion from which this Court dissents. Note that indeed, when the usufruct rights were constituted over the property that concerns us, separately from the ownership itself, and upon being transferred to other subjects other than the company that appears as the recorded bare owner (nuda propietaria registral), one of the attributes that comprise it was transferred, usufruct being part of the ownership or absolute property, and upon transferring any of the rights that comprise it to a subject other than the recorded owner of the asset, its ownership becomes limited or imperfect, as derived from numeral 265 of the Civil Code indicated above, which provides, in what is of interest: \"ARTICLE 265- When not all the rights that comprise full ownership correspond to the owner, the property is imperfect or limited. (...)\" Thus, upon such usufructs being constituted autonomously and in turn being transferred, the scenario provided for in subsection a) of Article 14 of Law No. 7509 was configured, and therefore, the normative precept for an automatic modification to the value of the property in the Alajuela registry, registered under real estate folio number 170745, was fulfilled, and consequently, the taxable base for the calculation of the property tax for said property was modified, as legally appropriate; since said calculation has been based on the value assigned on record for that property before the National Registry, as the same plaintiff admits in its statement formalizing the action and has been duly demonstrated in the list of proven facts that support this resolution. Therefore, it has little or no bearing on the outcome of this litigation that the market value is lower—as the plaintiff maintains—than the registered value established for the property, since it is true that the calculation of the tax is not carried out based on the former, but rather on the value assigned before the tax administration. Moreover, it is worth noting for tax purposes, that according to the terms indicated by Article 6 of the Property Tax Law, each of the usufructuaries is responsible before the Tax Administration for covering the amount of said tax that corresponds to them, in consideration of the percentage that, as holder, corresponds to them over the usufruct of the property. As a corollary to the foregoing, since the plaintiff's arguments are not well-founded, this Court must proceed to reject in all its aspects the filed lawsuit, as is hereby ordered, thereby confirming the challenged actions carried out by the Municipality of Los Chiles. The claims for repayment of what was paid, raised by the plaintiff in its statement of claim, must meet the same fate, in accordance with the considerations set forth above. “\n\nIn the case of a subdivision, the proportionality of the registered value of the parent property shall be applied, according to the area segregated or divided.” Regarding the so-called transfer of ownership (traslado de dominio) by deed or public instrument, established in subsection a) of Article 14 of the aforementioned law, it must be noted that ownership (Dominio) or absolute property over the thing, as a legal institution, comprises the rights of possession, usufruct (usufructo), transformation and alienation, defense and exclusion, restitution and indemnification over the property, and the usufruct may be acquired by any of the means provided by the current legal system for the transfer of ownership over the thing (Articles 264 and 335 of the Civil Code). The value of the property established by the municipality as the taxable base for determining the amount of the property tax (impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles) owed by the plaintiff, is, according to her statement in her complaint, the combined value of the usufructs (usufructos) constituted over the property, with which she does not agree, a criterion from which this Court dissents. See that, indeed, when the rights of usufruct over the property in question were constituted, separately from the ownership itself, and were transferred to other subjects different from the company that appears as the registered bare owner (nuda propietaria registral), the transfer of one of the attributes that comprise it occurred, as the usufruct is part of the ownership or absolute property, and when any of the rights that comprise it are transferred to a subject other than the registered owner (propietario registral) of the good, their title becomes limited or imperfect, as derived from numeral 265 of the Civil Code indicated above, which provides, in relevant part: \"ARTICLE 265- When all the rights that comprise full ownership do not correspond to the owner, the property is imperfect or limited.(...)\" Thus, upon autonomously constituting such usufructs and simultaneously transferring them, the scenario provided for by subsection a) of Article 14 of Ley 7509 was configured, and therefore, the regulatory precept for an automatic modification of the value of the property in the Alajuela district, registered under real folio number 170745, was fulfilled, and consequently, the taxable base for the calculation of the property tax for that farm was modified, as legally appropriate; since said calculation has been based on the value registrationally assigned to that farm before the National Registry, as the same plaintiff admits in her formalization brief and has been duly proven in the list of proven facts that support this ruling. Therefore, there is little or no bearing on the outcome of this litigation whether the market value is lower—as the plaintiff maintains—than the registered value (valor registral) established for the farm, since it is certain that the calculation of the tax is not based on the former, but on the value assigned before the tax administration (administración tributaria). Furthermore, it is worth noting for tax purposes that, pursuant to what is indicated by Article 6 of the Ley de Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles, each of the usufructuaries (usufructuarios) is responsible before the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) for covering the amount of said tax corresponding to them, considering the percentage that corresponds to them as holder of the usufruct over the property. As a corollary of the foregoing, as the plaintiff's arguments lack merit, this Court must proceed to reject the lawsuit in all its aspects, as is hereby ordered, thus confirming the challenged actions carried out by the Municipality of Los Chiles. The same fate must befall the claims for recovery of amounts paid raised by the plaintiff in her complaint, in accordance with the considerations set forth above.\"\n\n170745, and therefore, the taxable base for the calculation of the immovable property tax (impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles) for that property was modified, as legally required; since this calculation has been based on the value registered (valor registral) assigned to that property before the National Registry (Registro Nacional), as the plaintiff herself admits in her formal complaint and which has been duly demonstrated in the list of proven facts that support this resolution. Therefore, the fact that the market value is lower —as the plaintiff maintains— than the registered value (valor registral) established for the property has little or no bearing on the outcome of this litigation, as the truth is that the tax calculation is not made based on the former, but rather on the value assigned before the tax administration. Furthermore, it is worth noting for tax purposes that, pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 of the Immovable Property Tax Law (Ley de Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles), each of the usufructuaries is responsible before the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) for covering the amount of said tax that corresponds to them, in accordance with the percentage they hold as titleholder over the usufruct (usufructo) of the immovable property. As a corollary to the foregoing, since the plaintiff's arguments are without merit, this Tribunal must proceed to reject the filed lawsuit in all its aspects, as is hereby ordered, thus confirming the challenged actions carried out by the Municipality of Los Chiles (Municipalidad de Los Chiles). The claims for restitution of amounts paid, raised by the plaintiff in her complaint, must suffer the same fate, in accordance with the previously stated considerations. “" }