{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-153752", "citation": "Res. 00118-2014 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VI", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Anulación de determinación tributaria por falta de motivación del hecho generador en impuesto de ventas", "title_en": "Annulment of Tax Assessment for Lack of Reasoning on Taxable Event in Sales Tax", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VI anula una determinación de impuesto general sobre las ventas por falta de motivación del acto administrativo. La Administración Tributaria trasladó montos declarados como crédito fiscal a débito impositivo, sin justificar adecuadamente cuál era el hecho generador de la obligación tributaria, partiendo de presunciones sin sustento probatorio. El Tribunal recuerda que la carga de probar los hechos constitutivos de la obligación corresponde a la Administración, según el artículo 140 del Código Tributario y la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera. La simple inscripción tardía del contribuyente o la declaración de su actividad como de servicios publicitarios no exime a la Administración de demostrar el origen de los débitos determinados. Se anula el traslado de cargo y las resoluciones recurridas por violación al debido proceso y al principio de legalidad tributaria.", "summary_en": "The Administrative Contentious Court (Section VI) annuls a sales tax assessment for lack of reasoning in the administrative act. The Tax Administration transferred amounts declared as fiscal credit to tax debit without adequately justifying the taxable event, relying on unsupported presumptions. The Court reiterates that the burden of proving the constitutive facts of the tax obligation lies with the Administration under Article 140 of the Tax Code and Supreme Court case law. The mere late registration of the taxpayer or its declared activity as advertising services does not relieve the Administration from demonstrating the origin of the assessed debits. The assessment and the challenged resolutions are annulled for violation of due process and the principle of tax legality.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VI", "date": "2014", "year": "2014", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "hecho generador", "crédito fiscal", "determinación tributaria", "carga de la prueba", "Código Tributario", "motivación del acto", "Impuesto General sobre las Ventas", "Sala Primera" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 18", "law": "Constitución Política" }, { "article": "Art. 19", "law": "Constitución Política" }, { "article": "Art. 1", "law": "Ley 6826" }, { "article": "Art. 5", "law": "Ley 6826" }, { "article": "Art. 140", "law": "Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios" } ], "keywords_es": [ "impuesto general sobre las ventas", "crédito fiscal", "carga de la prueba", "determinación tributaria", "hecho generador", "motivación del acto administrativo", "artículo 140 Código Tributario", "anulación de determinación" ], "keywords_en": [ "general sales tax", "fiscal credit", "burden of proof", "tax assessment", "taxable event", "reasoning of administrative act", "Article 140 Tax Code", "annulment of assessment" ], "excerpt_es": "No debe perderse de vista que la determinación de la obligación tributaria siempre debe encontrarse amparada a criterios objetivos que la Administración pueda señalar como constitutivos de la obligación que pretende cobrar, que es justamente lo que se extraña en el acto de determinación impugnado, mismo que parte de presunciones sin determinar fielmente el origen de los datos que le permiten a ésta arribar a la conclusión que se ha producido el hecho generador en los términos previstos por la norma. [...] En este punto, lleva razón el actor cuando alega que no se desprende de las conductas impugnadas cual es el hecho generador de la ley general del impuesto sobre las ventas que se pretende cobrar, lo que se traduce en la falta de motivación a fin de cuentas de esos actos. [...] Teniendo claro que era la administración la que tenía la obligación legal de demostrar los hechos generadores de la obligación en la relación tributaria que se discute y la falta de motivación en ese sentido, lo procedente es anular la determinación efectuada al contribuyente en el traslado de cargo número 2752000018984.", "excerpt_en": "It must not be lost sight of that the determination of the tax obligation must always be supported by objective criteria that the Administration can point to as constitutive of the obligation it seeks to collect, which is precisely what is missing in the challenged assessment, which starts from presumptions without faithfully determining the origin of the data that allow it to conclude that the taxable event has occurred as provided by law. [...] On this point, the plaintiff is correct in arguing that the challenged actions do not reveal what the taxable event under the General Sales Tax Law is that is sought to be collected, which ultimately translates into a lack of reasoning for those acts. [...] Being clear that it was the Administration that had the legal obligation to prove the constitutive facts of the obligation in the disputed tax relationship and given the lack of reasoning in that regard, the appropriate course is to annul the assessment made against the taxpayer in charge transfer number 2752000018984.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Granted", "label_es": "Con lugar", "summary_en": "The tax assessment and the appealed resolutions are annulled for lack of reasoning regarding the taxable event of the sales tax.", "summary_es": "Se anula la determinación tributaria y las resoluciones recurridas por falta de motivación en cuanto al hecho generador del impuesto sobre las ventas." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando VIII", "quote_en": "It must not be lost sight of that the determination of the tax obligation must always be supported by objective criteria that the Administration can point to as constitutive of the obligation it seeks to collect.", "quote_es": "No debe perderse de vista que la determinación de la obligación tributaria siempre debe encontrarse amparada a criterios objetivos que la Administración pueda señalar como constitutivos de la obligación que pretende cobrar." }, { "context": "Considerando VIII", "quote_en": "The plaintiff is correct in arguing that the challenged actions do not reveal what the taxable event under the General Sales Tax Law is that is sought to be collected, which ultimately translates into a lack of reasoning for those acts.", "quote_es": "Lleva razón el actor cuando alega que no se desprende de las conductas impugnadas cual es el hecho generador de la ley general del impuesto sobre las ventas que se pretende cobrar, lo que se traduce en la falta de motivación a fin de cuentas de esos actos." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-32526", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 6826 Art. 1" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-153752", "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-32526", "norm_num": "6826", "norm_name": "Ley del Impuesto al Valor Agregado", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "08/11/1982" }, { "doc_id": "norm-46631", "norm_num": "8114", "norm_name": "Ley de Simplificación y Eficiencia Tributarias", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "04/07/2001" }, { "doc_id": "norm-6530", "norm_num": "4755", "norm_name": "Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "03/05/1971" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“VII EL IMPUESTO SOBRE\r\nLAS VENTAS EN LA NORMATIVA NACIONAL: Sobre\r\nla base Constitucional del deber de nacionales y extranjeros de contribuir con\r\nlos gastos Públicos artículos 18 y 19 de la\r\nCarta Magna descansa la potestad Tributaria de establecer un distintos\r\ntributos, tal es el caso del gravamen sobre el valor en la venta de\r\nmercancías y en la prestación de una serie de servicios que se definen en el\r\nartículo primero de la Ley número 6826 del 8 de noviembre de 1982. El hecho generador de este tributo surge entre varios supuestos, así dispuestos en el artículo\r\ntercero: a) En la venta de mercancías, en el momento de la facturación o\r\nentrega de ellas, en el acto que se realice primero. b) En las importaciones o\r\ninternaciones de mercancías en el momento de la aceptación de la póliza o del\r\nformulario aduanero, según corresponda. c) En la prestación de servicios, en el\r\nmomento de la facturación o de la prestación del servicio, en el\r\nacto que se realice primero. ch) En el uso o consumo\r\nde mercancías por parte de los contribuyentes, en la fecha en que aquellas se\r\nretiren de la empresa. d) En las ventas en consignación y los apartados de\r\nmercaderías, en el momento en que la mercadería queda apartada, según sea el\r\ncaso. El impuesto que debe pagarse al Fisco se determina\r\npor la diferencia entre el débito y el crédito fiscales que estén debidamente\r\nrespaldados por comprobantes y registrados en la contabilidad de los\r\ncontribuyentes. El débito fiscal se fija aplicando la tarifa de impuesto\r\na que se refiere el artículo 10 de la ley mencionada al total de ventas\r\ngravadas del\r\nmes correspondiente. El crédito fiscal se establece sumando el impuesto\r\nrealmente pagado por el contribuyente sobre las compras, importaciones o\r\ninternaciones que realice durante el mes correspondiente, así como\r\nel impuesto pagado por concepto de primas de seguro que protegen bienes,\r\nmaquinaria e insumos directamente incorporados o utilizados en forma directa en\r\nla producción del bien o la prestación de servicios\r\ngravados. El crédito fiscal procede en el caso de adquisición de mercancías que\r\nse incorporen físicamente en la elaboración de bienes exentos del pago de este impuesto, así como sobre la maquinaria y equipo que se\r\ndestinen directamente para producir los bienes indicados. Asimismo, el crédito\r\nfiscal se otorgará sobre la adquisición de mercancías que se incorporen\r\nfísicamente en la producción de bienes que se exporten exentas o no del\r\npago de este impuesto. (Así reformado el párrafo anterior por el artículo\r\n15 de la Ley N° 8114, Ley de Simplificación y Eficiencia Tributaria, de 4 de\r\njulio del 2001) Cuando el crédito fiscal sea mayor que el débito, la diferencia\r\nconstituye un saldo del\r\nimpuesto a favor del\r\ncontribuyente. El crédito fiscal por compras locales debe estar respaldado por\r\nfacturas o comprobantes debidamente autorizados por la Administración\r\nTributaria.(Así reformado su último párrafo por el artículo 25 de la Ley de\r\nJusticia Tributaria Nº 7535 de 1º de agosto de 1995) Cabe señalar que este artículo\r\nfue reformado por la ley N° 9128 del 20 de marzo de 2013, pero para efectos de\r\neste análisis se aplicó el artículo tal y como estaba vigente al momento en que\r\nse producen las actuaciones administrativas impugnadas. Retomando la disposición de\r\nley antes mencionada, constituye crédito fiscal de este tributo, toda aquella\r\nmercancía o bien que haya adquirido el contribuyente para la fabricación de\r\nobjetos que venda\r\no prestación de servicios, sean estos exentos o no. Así en efecto se desprende del ordinal 21 del Reglamento\r\n14082-H en la que se puede observar un mayor detalle de estos supuestos en los\r\nque pese a tratarse de mercadería cuya venta está exenta, se permite la\r\naplicación del\r\ncrédito. Por otro lado, conviene señalar que esas compras y adquisiciones deben\r\nhaber sido realizadas en el período fiscal al que\r\ncorresponda la declaración, es decir, deben corresponder al mes declarado. Desde luego que a ese crédito\r\nproducto de las adquisiciones, debe adicionarse el saldo del período anterior, según lo establece el\r\ncitado canon 14 de la Ley. Ese beneficio fiscal aplica con exclusividad a los\r\ncontribuyentes inscritos, según se desprende del numeral 5 de la norma de rito que regula\r\nla Inscripción de la siguiente forma: Al iniciar\r\nsus actividades gravadas, las personas o las entidades a las que se refiere el\r\nartículo anterior deben inscribirse en el registro de contribuyentes que deberá\r\nllevar la Administración Tributaria. Las personas o las\r\nentidades que no hayan solicitado la inscripción serán inscritas de oficio por\r\nesa Administración Tributaria. ( Así\r\nreformado por el artículo 22 de la Ley de Justicia Tributaria No. 7535 de 1º de\r\nagosto de 1995 ) Sin perjuicio de las\r\nsanciones que pudieran corresponderles, las personas que no cumplan con las\r\nobligaciones de inscribirse quedan obligadas, de todas maneras, al pago del impuesto, y no tendrán\r\nderecho a devolución o crédito por el impuesto pagado sobre la existencia de\r\nmercancías que mantengan en inventario a la fecha de su inscripción como contribuyentes. Así, en ese punto, en virtud de lo dispuesto resulta\r\nnecesario dilucidar el momento de aplicabilidad del crédito fiscal situación\r\nanalizada por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia que en su\r\noportunidad indicó: \" Así visto, si bien la inscripción previa permite al\r\nsujeto pasivo aplicar los créditos por las compras realizadas, con el objeto ya\r\naludido, se está frente a un derecho sujeto a condición, en tanto su aplicación\r\npende del inicio de operaciones de venta. Lo anterior debido a que al\r\nencontrarse registrado y producirse el hecho generador del crédito, se\r\nconstituye a su favor un derecho que en definitiva podrá aplicarlo, cuando\r\ninicie actividades de venta de bienes o servicios y realice la declaración\r\npertinente ya que hasta ese momento se puede materializar el efecto\r\ncompensatorio ya comentado. Esto obedece a la finalidad misma del beneficio y del\r\nimpuesto, que aplica solo sobre el valor agregado, por lo que es en la etapa de\r\nventa del\r\nbien o servicio que puede aplicarse el crédito. Lo contrario atentaría contra\r\nestas particularidades e impedirían que esa figura cumpla con su objetivo en el\r\nmarco de las relaciones que derivan del impuesto de ventas. Con todo, es en el\r\nmomento de efectuar la determinación y declaración de rigor, que conforme al\r\nOrdenamiento pertinente, el beneficio puede producir sus bondades reductoras de\r\nla obligación. De lo anterior se colige que en estos supuestos de inscripción\r\npreliminar de empresas, el crédito es aplicable cuando el sujeto inicia\r\noperaciones de ventas de bienes o servicios destinados al uso\r\no consumo del\r\nmercado nacional\". (Resolución 000861-F-2007 once horas veinticinco\r\nminutos del\r\nveintitrés de noviembre de dos mil siete) Realizadas las consideraciones anteriores se revisa de\r\nseguido el caso concreto.\n\r\n\r\n\nVIII- ANÁLISIS DEL CASO CONCRETO: \n\r\n\r\n\nAlega\r\nla parte actora en sustento de su acción como primer argumento : que no procede cobrar un impuesto de ventas sobre\r\ncréditos fiscales ya que contraviene lo dispuesto por los numerales 1 y 14 de\r\nla ley del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas.Sobre este mismo punto la\r\nRepresentación Estatal apoya la actuado por la Administración Tributaria sobre\r\nla tesis de que al presentar la sociedad actora las declaraciones del\r\nimpuesto sobre las ventas de los meses de abril, mayo y junio del año dos mil\r\n2007 y siendo que la inscripción como contribuyente se realizó hasta\r\njulio del siete esta situación representa un perjuicio para la administración\r\nen razón del impuesto de las ventas dejado de percibir. Ahora bien el punto\r\nmedular en torno al cual gravita esta controversia es el hecho que se tiene\r\ncomo probado de que la Sociedad Actora se inscribió como contribuyente\r\ndel impuesto sobre las ventas en julio del año 2007 y en principio había\r\nconsignado como fecha de inicio de actividades diciembre del año dos mil seis (\r\nver folio 18 del expediente determinativo), posteriormente modificó esta\r\nfecha a abril del año dos mil siete ( ver folio 16 del expediente determinativo\r\n) quedando períodos en los cuales estaba realizando actividades sin que cumpliera\r\nel deber de inscripción establecida en el articulo 5 de la ley general del\r\nimpuesto sobre las ventas, situación incluso aceptada por la misma Sociedad Actora al solicitar la\r\ninscripción retroactiva antes mencionada. Sin embargo, de conformidad con lo\r\ndispuesto en el artículo 140 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios,\r\nla carga de la prueba le incumbe a la Administración Tributaria respecto de los\r\nhechos constitutivos de la obligación, mientras que al contribuyente le\r\ncorresponde la acreditación respecto de los hechos impeditivos, modificativos o\r\nextintivos de la obligación tributaria. No debe perderse de vista que la\r\ndeterminación de la obligación tributaria siempre debe encontrarse amparada a\r\ncriterios objetivos que la Administración pueda señalar como constitutivos de\r\nla obligación que pretende cobrar, que es justamente lo que se extraña en el\r\nacto de determinación impugnado, mismo que parte de presunciones sin determinar\r\nfielmente el origen de los datos que le permiten a ésta arribar a la conclusión\r\nque se ha producido el hecho generador en los términos previstos por la norma.\r\nDebe recordarse que la Administración es la llamada a cerciorarse de la\r\nveracidad del contenido de las declaraciones juradas, utilizando para\r\nello los medios y procedimientos de análisis e investigación\r\nlegales que estime convenientes, no siendo de forma alguna admisible que\r\ninvierta la carga de la prueba al exponer que el contribuyente faltó a un deber\r\nformal, cual es demostrar que su única actividad es la de realizar la\r\nactividad relacionada con la confección de las guías telefónicas\r\noficiales, según el contrato suscrito con RACSA S.A. Es así, que un hecho\r\nnegativo es el que se le impone acreditar el contribuyente, lo cual contraviene\r\nla disposición normativa en referencia citada líneas atrás. Sobre este aspecto,\r\nla Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, mediante sentencia 00795 de\r\nlas dieciséis horas con quince minutos del treinta de julio del año dos mil\r\nnueve ha dicho lo siguiente: \" De\r\nacuerdo con los artículos 124 y 125 del Código Tributario, la Administración\r\npuede determinar el tributo en aquellos casos donde el contribuyente no lo\r\nrealice o cuando habiéndolo hecho, se le objeta. En este\r\nsegundo escenario, de interés para el presente asunto, la regla general es la\r\nutilización del método de base cierta, esto\r\nes, “tomando en cuenta los elementos que permitan conocer en forma directa los\r\nhechos generadores de la obligación tributaria” (numeral 125 inciso a) del cuerpo normativo\r\ncitado). Consiste en una revisión detallada de la contabilidad del\r\ncontribuyente (tanto de los libros contables, los comprobantes que le dan\r\nsustento, entre otros), a efectos de determinar la veracidad de la\r\nautoliquidación presentada bajo la forma de declaración jurada. De manera subsidiaria,\r\nla normativa tributaria establece un mecanismo alterno y supletorio para\r\naquellos supuestos en que no resulte posible seguir el anterior procedimiento,\r\npor presentarse algunas de las circunstancias establecidas en el inciso b) del\r\nprecepto 116 del Código Tributario, a saber, la ausencia de libros y registros,\r\nde documentos o bien, cuando a juicio de la autoridad competente, estos fueran\r\ninsuficientes o contradictorios. En este caso, la determinación será\r\npresuntiva, con base en parámetros objetivos (tales como los indicados en el\r\ncitado numeral), considerando, claro está, las particularidades del giro de la\r\nempresa y las condiciones del sector de la economía en que se desarrolla. La\r\ndiferencia entre ambos mecanismos se encuentra en los elementos que tiene a su\r\ndisposición el Fisco a fin de realizar la fijación del impuesto del\r\ncontribuyente, por lo que, para determinar cuando se está en presencia de uno u\r\notro, se deben apreciar los factores que se analizaron a efectos de comprobar\r\n(o fijar, según el caso) la autoliquidación del contribuyente. (…)” En concordancia con los alcances de la supra mencionada\r\nnorma del Código Tributario, y de acuerdo a los elementos de juicio actuantes\r\nen el expediente administrativo, en el presente asunto, la Administración\r\nTributaria realizó un proceso de auditoría fiscal a la empresa actora, llegando\r\nal convencimiento que los montos de los créditos por las compras declarados en\r\nlos meses de abril, mayo y junio del año 2007 constituyen en sí el débito del\r\nimpuesto sobre las ventas dejados de pagar, por lo que sencillamente trasladó\r\nlos montos descritos de una columna a otra sin ninguna justificación.En este\r\npunto, lleva razón el actor cuando alega que no se desprende de las conductas\r\nimpugnadas cual es el hecho generador de la ley general del impuesto sobre las\r\nventas que se pretende cobrar, lo que se traduce en la falta de motivación a\r\nfin de cuentas de esos actos. Conforme lo expuesto, se concluye que en el\r\nexpediente de estudio, la Administración Tributaria desatiende la tarea que\r\ntiene en el ejercicio de su potestad de Fiscalización para realizar todas las\r\nacciones y acudir a los medios probatorios necesarios, \r\npara el cumplimiento de sus fines y establecer lícitamente el origen y\r\nrespaldo de la carga tributaria que pretende endilgar a la Sociedad Actora. Más\r\nbien parte de una presunción que el contribuyente cuando se inscribió\r\ndeclaró que realizaba servicios publicitarios tal y como indicó en la\r\nresolución SF-DT-01-V-1717-8 que reza así: \"Tampoco es de recibo la\r\napreciación de la reclamante, en el sentido de que, dada la actividad que\r\ndesarrolla, los servicios que presta no están gravados con el impuesto de\r\nventas, por cuanto su declaración de inscripción ( folio 26 de expediente\r\ndeterminativo ) declaró su actividad económica es \"Servicios\r\nPublicitarios\" y según el artículo 1 de la Ley del Impuesto general sobre\r\nlas ventas, tal servicio si está gravado con el tributo de cita\". (ver folio 31 del\r\nexpediente determinativo) razonamiento avalado por el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo\r\nen la resolución TFA-230-2012 ( ver folio 67 del expediente determiniativo). Si la\r\nAdministración Tributaria estimaba que las diferencias por créditos provenián\r\nen realidad de la Ley General del Impuesto sobre las Ventas que sobre\r\notros servicios publicitarios, no se declararon debió demostrarlo e\r\nindicarle a la contribuyente claramente su origen, más no simplemente trasladar\r\nlos montos de una columna o otra, sin mayor explicación. Teniendo claro que era\r\nla administración la que tenía la obligación legal de demostrar los hechos\r\ngeneradores de la obligación en la relación tributaria que se discute y la\r\nfalta de motivación en ese sentido, lo procedente es anular la determinación\r\nefectuada al contribuyente en el traslado de cargo número 2752000018984, que\r\nliquida a cargo de la Sociedad Actora los aumentos por las sumas de\r\n1.014.510,00 (un millón catorce mil quinientos diez mil colones exactos) en\r\nabril, 32.492.746,00 ( treinta y dos millones cuatrocientos noventa y dos mil\r\nsetecientos cuarenta y seis colones exactos) en mayo y 95.890.797,00\r\n(noventa y cinco millones ochocientos noventa mil setecientos noventa y\r\nsiete colones exactos) en junio todos del 2007, para un total de 129.398.053,00\r\n(ciento veintinueve millones trescientos noventa y ocho mil cincuenta y tres\r\ncolones exactos) por concepto de impuesto general sobre las ventas en relación\r\ncon lo declarado. Se anulan también la resolución de la administración\r\nTributaria SF-DT-01-V-1717-8 y la resolución del Tribunal Fiscal\r\nAdministrativo TFA-230-2012 […].”", "body_en_text": "“VII THE SALES TAX\nIN NATIONAL REGULATIONS: Upon the Constitutional basis of the duty of nationals and foreigners to contribute to public expenses, Articles 18 and 19 of the Magna Carta rests the Tax authority to establish various taxes, such is the case of the levy on the value in the sale of goods and in the provision of a series of services defined in the first article of Law Number 6826 of November 8, 1982. The taxable event (hecho generador) of this tax arises among several scenarios, as set forth in article three: a) In the sale of goods, at the moment of invoicing or delivery of the same, whichever act occurs first. b) In the imports or internments of goods, at the moment of acceptance of the policy or customs form, as applicable. c) In the provision of services, at the moment of invoicing or of the provision of the service, whichever act occurs first. ch) In the use or consumption of goods by the taxpayers, on the date on which they are withdrawn from the company. d) In consignment sales and layaways of merchandise, at the moment the merchandise is set apart, as the case may be. The tax that must be paid to the Tax Authority is determined by the difference between the tax debit (débito fiscal) and the tax credit (crédito fiscal) that are duly supported by vouchers and recorded in the taxpayers' accounting. The tax debit is fixed by applying the tax rate referred to in Article 10 of the aforementioned law to the total taxable sales of the corresponding month. The tax credit is established by adding the tax actually paid by the taxpayer on the purchases, imports, or internments made during the corresponding month, as well as the tax paid for insurance premiums that protect goods, machinery, and inputs directly incorporated or used directly in the production of the good or the provision of taxable services. The tax credit proceeds in the case of acquisition of goods that are physically incorporated in the elaboration of goods exempt from the payment of this tax, as well as on the machinery and equipment directly destined to produce the indicated goods. Likewise, the tax credit shall be granted on the acquisition of goods that are physically incorporated in the production of goods that are exported, exempt or not from the payment of this tax. (The preceding paragraph thus reformed by Article 15 of Law N° 8114, Ley de Simplificación y Eficiencia Tributaria, of July 4, 2001) When the tax credit is greater than the tax debit, the difference constitutes a tax balance in favor of the taxpayer. The tax credit for local purchases must be supported by invoices or vouchers duly authorized by the Tax Administration. (Its last paragraph thus reformed by Article 25 of the Ley de Justicia Tributaria Nº 7535 of August 1, 1995) It should be noted that this article was reformed by Law N° 9128 of March 20, 2013, but for the purposes of this analysis, the article was applied as it was in force at the time the challenged administrative actions occurred. Returning to the aforementioned provision of law, any goods or merchandise that the taxpayer has acquired for the manufacture of objects they sell or for the provision of services, whether exempt or not, constitutes a tax credit for this tax. This in effect follows from subsection (ordinal) 21 of Reglamento 14082-H, in which a greater detail of these scenarios can be observed, wherein despite the merchandise's sale being exempt, the application of the credit is permitted. On the other hand, it is worth noting that these purchases and acquisitions must have been made in the fiscal period to which the return corresponds, that is, they must correspond to the month declared. Naturally, to this credit resulting from acquisitions must be added the balance from the prior period, as established by the cited canon 14 of the Law. This fiscal benefit applies exclusively to registered taxpayers, as follows from numeral 5 of the governing regulation that regulates Registration as follows: Upon initiating their taxable activities, the persons or entities referred to in the previous article must register in the taxpayer registry that the Tax Administration must maintain. Persons or entities that have not requested registration shall be registered ex officio by that Tax Administration. (Thus reformed by Article 22 of the Ley de Justicia Tributaria No.\n\n7535 of August 1, 1995) Without prejudice to the sanctions that may apply to them, persons who fail to comply with the registration obligations are nonetheless obligated to pay the tax, and shall not have the right to a refund or credit for the tax paid on the inventory of goods they hold at the date of their registration as taxpayers. Thus, on this point, by virtue of the provision, it is necessary to elucidate the moment of applicability of the tax credit (crédito fiscal), a situation analyzed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which in its time indicated: \"Thus seen, although prior registration allows the taxable person (sujeto pasivo) to apply the credits for purchases made, with the aforementioned purpose, this is a right subject to a condition, as its application depends on the start of sales operations. The foregoing because, upon being registered and the taxable event (hecho generador) of the credit occurring, a right is constituted in their favor that they may definitively apply when they begin activities of selling goods or services and file the pertinent declaration, since only at that moment can the compensatory effect already discussed materialize. This is due to the very purpose of the benefit and the tax, which applies only to value added, which is why it is at the sales stage of the good or service that the credit can be applied. The contrary would violate these particularities and prevent this figure from fulfilling its objective within the framework of the relations deriving from the sales tax. All in all, it is at the moment of carrying out the strict determination and declaration that, according to the relevant Legal System, the benefit can produce its obligation-reducing benefits. From the foregoing, it is inferred that in these cases of preliminary registration of companies, the credit is applicable when the subject begins sales operations of goods or services destined for use or consumption in the domestic market.\" (Resolution 000861-F-2007, eleven hours twenty-five minutes of November twenty-third, two thousand seven). Having made the foregoing considerations, the specific case is reviewed below.\n\n**VIII- ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE:**\n\nThe plaintiff claims in support of its action as a first argument: that it is not appropriate to charge a sales tax on tax credits (créditos fiscales) since it contravenes the provisions of numerals 1 and 14 of the General Sales Tax Law. On this same point, the State Representation supports the actions taken by the Tax Administration on the thesis that, since the plaintiff company filed the sales tax declarations for the months of April, May, and June of the year two thousand seven, and since registration as a taxpayer was not carried out until July of '07, this situation represents a detriment to the administration by reason of the sales tax left uncollected. Now then, the core point around which this controversy revolves is the fact, taken as proven, that the Plaintiff Company registered as a sales tax taxpayer in July of the year 2007 and had initially recorded December of the year two thousand six as the start date of activities (see folio 18 of the determinative file), subsequently modified this date to April of the year two thousand seven (see folio 16 of the determinative file), leaving periods in which it was conducting activities without fulfilling the duty of registration established in article 5 of the General Sales Tax Law, a situation even accepted by the same Plaintiff Company when requesting the aforementioned retroactive registration. However, in accordance with the provisions of article 140 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures, the burden of proof falls on the Tax Administration regarding the facts constituting the obligation, while it is up to the taxpayer to demonstrate the facts that impede, modify, or extinguish the tax obligation. It should not be overlooked that the determination (determinación) of the tax obligation must always be based on objective criteria that the Administration can point out as constituting the obligation it intends to collect, which is precisely what is missing in the contested determination, which is based on presumptions without faithfully determining the origin of the data that allow it to conclude that the taxable event (hecho generador) has occurred under the terms provided by the norm. It must be remembered that the Administration is called upon to ascertain the truthfulness of the content of the sworn declarations, using for this purpose the legal means and procedures of analysis and investigation it deems appropriate, it being in no way admissible for it to reverse the burden of proof by stating that the taxpayer failed in a formal duty, which is to demonstrate that its only activity is to carry out the activity related to the production of official telephone directories, according to the contract signed with RACSA S.A. Thus, it is a negative fact that the taxpayer is required to prove, which contravenes the referenced regulatory provision cited above. On this aspect, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, through judgment 00795 of sixteen hours fifteen minutes of July thirty, two thousand nine, has stated the following: \"According to articles 124 and 125 of the Tax Code, the Administration can determine the tax in those cases where the taxpayer does not do so or when, having done so, it is objected to. In this second scenario, of interest for this matter, the general rule is the use of the certain basis method, that is, 'taking into account the elements that allow knowing directly the taxable events (hechos generadores) of the tax obligation' (numeral 125 subsection a) of the cited normative body). It consists of a detailed review of the taxpayer's accounting (both the accounting books, the supporting vouchers, among others), in order to determine the truthfulness of the self-assessment (autoliquidación) presented in the form of a sworn declaration. Alternatively, the tax regulations establish an alternate and supplementary mechanism for those cases where it is not possible to follow the previous procedure, due to the presence of some of the circumstances established in subsection b) of precept 116 of the Tax Code, namely, the absence of books and records, of documents, or when, in the judgment of the competent authority, these are insufficient or contradictory. In this case, the determination will be presumptive, based on objective parameters (such as those indicated in the cited numeral), considering, of course, the particularities of the company's line of business and the conditions of the economic sector in which it operates. The difference between both mechanisms lies in the elements available to the Tax Authority in order to fix the taxpayer's tax, therefore, to determine when one is in the presence of one or the other, the factors that were analyzed to verify (or fix, as the case may be) the taxpayer's self-assessment must be assessed. (…)\" In accordance with the scope of the aforementioned Tax Code norm, and according to the evidence in the administrative file, in the present matter, the Tax Administration conducted a tax audit process of the plaintiff company, reaching the conviction that the amounts of the credits for purchases declared in the months of April, May, and June of the year 2007 constitute in themselves the debit of the sales tax left unpaid, for which reason it simply transferred the described amounts from one column to another without any justification. On this point, the plaintiff is correct when alleging that the taxable event (hecho generador) of the general sales tax law that is intended to be collected does not emerge from the contested conduct, which translates ultimately into a lack of reasoning (motivación) for these acts. According to the foregoing, it is concluded that in the file under study, the Tax Administration neglects the task it has in the exercise of its Supervisory power to carry out all actions and resort to the necessary evidentiary means for the fulfillment of its purposes and to lawfully establish the origin and backing of the tax burden it intends to attribute to the Plaintiff Company. Rather, it starts from a presumption that the taxpayer, upon registering, declared that it provided advertising services as indicated in resolution SF-DT-01-V-1717-8, which reads as follows: \"*Neither is the claimant's appreciation receivable, in the sense that, given the activity it carries out, the services it provides are not taxed with the sales tax, since its registration declaration (folio 26 of the determinative file) declared its economic activity is 'Advertising Services' and according to article 1 of the General Sales Tax Law, such service is indeed taxed with the cited tax.*\" (see folio 31 of the determinative file) reasoning endorsed by the Administrative Tax Tribunal in resolution TFA-230-2012 (see folio 67 of the determinative file). If the Tax Administration considered that the differences in credits actually came from the General Sales Tax Law on other advertising services that were not declared, it should have demonstrated it and indicated to the taxpayer clearly its origin, but not simply transferred the amounts from one column to another, without further explanation. Having it clear that it was the administration that had the legal obligation to demonstrate the taxable events (hechos generadores) of the obligation in the tax relationship under discussion and the lack of reasoning in that sense, it is appropriate to annul the determination made to the taxpayer in the transfer of charge number 2752000018984, which liquidates against the Plaintiff Company the increases for the sums of 1,014,510.00 (one million fourteen thousand five hundred ten colones exactly) in April, 32,492,746.00 (thirty-two million four hundred ninety-two thousand seven hundred forty-six colones exactly) in May, and 95,890,797.00 (ninety-five million eight hundred ninety thousand seven hundred ninety-seven colones exactly) in June, all of 2007, for a total of 129,398,053.00 (one hundred twenty-nine million three hundred ninety-eight thousand fifty-three colones exactly) for general sales tax in relation to what was declared. Also annulled are the Tax Administration resolution SF-DT-01-V-1717-8 and the resolution of the Administrative Tax Tribunal TFA-230-2012 […].”\n\nThe tax credit for local purchases must be supported by invoices or receipts duly authorized by the Tax Administration. (Last paragraph thus amended by Article 25 of the Tax Justice Law No. 7535 of August 1, 1995) It should be noted that this article was amended by Law No. 9128 of March 20, 2013, but for the purposes of this analysis, the article was applied as it was in force at the time the challenged administrative actions occurred. Returning to the aforementioned legal provision, any merchandise or goods that the taxpayer has acquired for the manufacture of objects that it sells or for the provision of services, whether exempt or not, constitutes a tax credit for this tax. This indeed follows from Article 21 of Regulation 14082-H, in which greater detail of these scenarios can be observed, where, despite the merchandise being sold being exempt, the application of the credit is allowed. On the other hand, it is worth noting that those purchases and acquisitions must have been made in the tax period to which the return corresponds, that is, they must correspond to the month declared. Of course, to that credit arising from acquisitions must be added the balance from the previous period, as established by the aforementioned Article 14 of the Law. This tax benefit applies exclusively to registered taxpayers, as follows from Article 5 of the procedural regulation that regulates Registration as follows: Upon commencing their taxable activities, the persons or entities referred to in the preceding article must register in the taxpayer registry that the Tax Administration must maintain. Persons or entities that have not requested registration will be registered ex officio by that Tax Administration. (Thus amended by Article 22 of the Tax Justice Law No. 7535 of August 1, 1995) Notwithstanding any sanctions that may apply, persons who fail to comply with the obligation to register remain obligated, in any event, to pay the tax, and will not be entitled to a refund or credit for the tax paid on the stock of goods held in inventory on the date of their registration as taxpayers.\n\nThus, at this point, by virtue of the provisions, it is necessary to elucidate the moment of applicability of the tax credit, a situation analyzed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which in its turn stated: \"Thus viewed, although prior registration allows the taxable person to apply the credits for purchases made, for the purpose already alluded to, this is a right subject to a condition, insofar as its application depends on the commencement of sales operations. The foregoing is because, upon being registered and the taxable event of the credit occurring, a right is constituted in their favor that they may ultimately apply when they begin activities selling goods or services and file the pertinent return, since it is only at that moment that the compensatory effect already discussed can materialize. This is due to the very purpose of the benefit and of the tax, which applies only to the value added, so it is at the stage of selling the good or service that the credit can be applied. The contrary would undermine these particularities and would prevent that figure from fulfilling its objective within the framework of the relationships deriving from the sales tax. All in all, it is at the moment of performing the rigorous determination and declaration that, in accordance with the pertinent legal order, the benefit can produce its obligation-reducing virtues. It follows from the above that in these cases of preliminary company registration, the credit is applicable when the person begins sales operations of goods or services intended for use or consumption in the national market.\" (Resolution 000861-F-2007, eleven hours twenty-five minutes of the twenty-third of November, two thousand seven.)\n\nHaving made the foregoing considerations, the specific case is reviewed below.\n\n**VIII- ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE:**\n\nThe plaintiff argues in support of its action as a first argument: that it is improper to charge a sales tax on tax credits since it contravenes the provisions of Articles 1 and 14 of the General Sales Tax Law. On this same point, the State Representation supports the actions of the Tax Administration on the thesis that, since the plaintiff company filed the sales tax returns for the months of April, May, and June of two thousand seven, and given that registration as a taxpayer was not completed until July of two thousand seven, this situation represents a detriment to the administration by reason of the sales tax foregone. Now, the core point around which this controversy revolves is the fact proven that the Plaintiff Company registered as a sales tax taxpayer in July of 2007 and had initially recorded December of two thousand six as the date of commencement of activities (see folio 18 of the determining case file), subsequently it modified this date to April of two thousand seven (see folio 16 of the determining case file), leaving periods in which it was carrying out activities without fulfilling the registration duty established in Article 5 of the general sales tax law, a situation even accepted by the Plaintiff Company itself when requesting the aforementioned retroactive registration. However, in accordance with the provisions of Article 140 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures, the burden of proof falls on the Tax Administration regarding the constitutive facts of the obligation, whereas the taxpayer is responsible for providing evidence regarding the facts that prevent, modify, or extinguish the tax obligation. It should not be lost sight of that the determination of the tax obligation must always be supported by objective criteria that the Administration can point to as constitutive of the obligation it seeks to collect, which is precisely what is lacking in the challenged determination act, which relies on presumptions without faithfully determining the origin of the data that allow it to reach the conclusion that the taxable event has occurred under the terms established by the norm. It must be remembered that the Administration is the one called upon to ascertain the veracity of the content of the sworn returns, using for this purpose the legal means and procedures of analysis and investigation it deems convenient, and it is in no way admissible for it to reverse the burden of proof by asserting that the taxpayer failed a formal duty, which is to demonstrate that its sole activity is carrying out the activity related to the making of the official telephone directories, according to the contract signed with RACSA S.A. Thus, it is a negative fact that is imposed upon the taxpayer to prove, which contravenes the regulatory provision referenced in lines above. On this aspect, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, through judgment 00795 of sixteen hours and fifteen minutes of the thirtieth of July of two thousand nine, has stated the following: \"In accordance with Articles 124 and 125 of the Tax Code, the Administration may determine the tax in those cases where the taxpayer does not do so or when, having done so, it is challenged. In this second scenario, of interest for the present matter, the general rule is the use of the direct evidence (base cierta) method, that is, 'taking into account the elements that permit direct knowledge of the taxable events of the tax obligation' (subsection a) of numeral 125 of the cited regulatory body). It consists of a detailed review of the taxpayer's accounting (both the accounting books, the supporting vouchers, among others), for the purpose of determining the veracity of the self-assessment filed in the form of a sworn return. Subsidiarily, the tax regulations establish an alternate and supplementary mechanism for those cases where it is not possible to follow the previous procedure, due to the occurrence of some of the circumstances established in subsection b) of Article 116 of the Tax Code, namely, the absence of books and records, documents, or when, in the judgment of the competent authority, these are insufficient or contradictory. In this case, the determination will be presumptive, based on objective parameters (such as those indicated in the cited numeral), considering, of course, the particularities of the company's line of business and the conditions of the sector of the economy in which it operates. The difference between both mechanisms lies in the elements available to the Tax Authority in order to fix the taxpayer's tax, so, to determine when one or the other is applicable, the factors analyzed to verify (or fix, as the case may be) the taxpayer's self-assessment must be assessed. (…)\" In accordance with the scope of the aforementioned Tax Code norm, and according to the evidentiary elements present in the administrative case file, in the present matter, the Tax Administration carried out a tax audit process on the plaintiff company, arriving at the conviction that the amounts of credits for purchases declared in the months of April, May, and June of 2007 themselves constitute the debit of the sales tax foregone, so it simply transferred the described amounts from one column to another without any justification. On this point, the plaintiff is correct when it alleges that the taxable event of the general sales tax law that is sought to be collected cannot be deduced from the challenged conducts, which translates into a lack of reasoning, ultimately, of those acts. In accordance with the foregoing, it is concluded that in the case file under study, the Tax Administration disregards the task it has in the exercise of its Audit power to perform all actions and resort to the necessary evidentiary means for the fulfillment of its purposes and to lawfully establish the origin and support of the tax burden it seeks to attribute to the Plaintiff Company. Rather, it starts from a presumption that the taxpayer, when it registered, declared that it performed advertising services, as indicated in resolution SF-DT-01-V-1717-8, which reads as follows: \"*Neither is the claimant's assessment acceptable, to the effect that, given the activity it carries out, the services it provides are not taxed with the sales tax, because its registration declaration (folio 26 of the determining case file) declared its economic activity is 'Advertising Services' and according to Article 1 of the General Sales Tax Law, such service is indeed taxed with the cited tax.*\" (see folio 31 of the determining case file), reasoning endorsed by the Administrative Tax Tribunal in resolution TFA-230-2012 (see folio 67 of the determining case file). If the Tax Administration considered that the differences from credits actually arose from the General Sales Tax Law on other advertising services that were not declared, it should have demonstrated it and clearly indicated their origin to the taxpayer, but not simply transferred the amounts from one column to another, without further explanation. Having it clear that it was the administration that had the legal obligation to demonstrate the taxable events of the obligation in the tax relationship under discussion and the lack of reasoning in that regard, it is proper to annul the determination made against the taxpayer in the transfer of charge number 2752000018984, which liquidates against the Plaintiff Company the increases for the sums of 1,014,510.00 (one million fourteen thousand five hundred ten exact colones) in April, 32,492,746.00 (thirty-two million four hundred ninety-two thousand seven hundred forty-six exact colones) in May, and 95,890,797.00 (ninety-five million eight hundred ninety thousand seven hundred ninety-seven exact colones) in June, all of 2007, for a total of 129,398,053.00 (one hundred twenty-nine million three hundred ninety-eight thousand fifty-three exact colones) for general sales tax in relation to what was declared. The Tax Administration resolution SF-DT-01-V-1717-8 and the Administrative Tax Tribunal resolution TFA-230-2012 are also annulled […].\"" }