{
"id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-162530",
"citation": "Res. 00461-2017 Sala Primera de la Corte",
"section": "nexus_decisions",
"doc_type": "court_decision",
"title_es": "El FRE no goza de la exención del 8 % del artículo 23 de la LISR",
"title_en": "The FRE does not qualify for the 8% exemption under Article 23 of the LISR",
"summary_es": "La Sala Primera analiza si el Fondo de Retiro de Empleados de la CCSS (FRE) está exento de la retención del 8 % del impuesto sobre la renta prevista en el artículo 23 de la LISR. El recurrente sostenía que el FRE, como parte integrante de la Caja, gozaba de las exenciones de esta, o bien, que le beneficiaba la exención establecida en el artículo 72 de la Ley de Protección al Trabajador. La Sala confirma el fallo de instancia y rechaza ambas pretensiones. En primer lugar, recuerda que las exenciones tributarias son liberalidades del legislador, deben constar de forma expresa y no admiten aplicación extensiva ni analógica, conforme a los principios de reserva de ley e igualdad. El artículo 23 inciso c) de la LISR enumera taxativamente los beneficiarios (Estado, municipalidades, instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas, universidades estatales, Banco Popular) sin mencionar al FRE; los recursos del FRE no forman parte del patrimonio de la CCSS ni fue creado para los fines de seguridad social de esta. En cuanto al artículo 72 de la Ley de Protección al Trabajador, el FRE no es administrado por una operadora de pensiones autorizada, por lo que tampoco le alcanza esa exención. La Sala reitera su jurisprudencia sobre interpretación normativa tributaria y rechaza el cargo.",
"summary_en": "The First Chamber of the Supreme Court rules on whether the CCSS Employees' Retirement Fund (FRE) is exempt from the 8% income tax withholding under Article 23 of the LISR. The appellant argued that the FRE, as an integral part of the CCSS, enjoyed the latter's exemptions, or alternatively, was covered by Article 72 of the Worker Protection Law. The Chamber upholds the lower court's judgment and rejects both arguments. It emphasizes that tax exemptions are legislative privileges that must be expressly stated and cannot be extended by analogy, in accordance with the principles of legality and equality. Article 23(c) of the LISR exhaustively lists the beneficiaries (State, municipalities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions, state universities, Banco Popular) without mentioning the FRE; the FRE's assets do not form part of the CCSS's patrimony and it was not created to serve the CCSS's social security purposes. Regarding Article 72 of the Worker Protection Law, the FRE is not administered by an authorized pension operator, so that exemption does not apply either. The Chamber reiterates its case law on tax norm interpretation and rejects the challenge.",
"court_or_agency": "Sala Primera de la Corte",
"date": "2017",
"year": "2017",
"topic_ids": [
"_off-topic"
],
"primary_topic_id": "_off-topic",
"es_concept_hints": [
"FRE (Fondo de Retiro de Empleados de la CCSS)",
"CCSS",
"exención tributaria",
"reserva de ley",
"LISR",
"retención del 8%"
],
"concept_anchors": [
{
"article": "Art. 23 inciso c",
"law": "Ley 7092"
},
{
"article": "Art. 58",
"law": "Ley Constitutiva de la CCSS"
},
{
"article": "Art. 5",
"law": "Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios"
},
{
"article": "Art. 3 inciso a",
"law": "Ley 7092"
},
{
"article": "Art. 72",
"law": "Ley 7983"
},
{
"article": "Art. 30",
"law": "Ley 7983"
}
],
"keywords_es": [
"FRE",
"CCSS",
"exención tributaria",
"Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta",
"Ley de Protección al Trabajador",
"reserva de ley",
"interpretación normativa",
"Sala Primera",
"impuesto sobre la renta",
"8% retención"
],
"keywords_en": [
"FRE",
"CCSS",
"tax exemption",
"Income Tax Law",
"Worker Protection Law",
"reservation of law",
"normative interpretation",
"Costa Rican Supreme Court First Chamber",
"income tax withholding",
"8% withholding"
],
"excerpt_es": "el legislador designó de manera expresa las entidades favorecidas de la exención, por lo que el beneficio corresponde a los indicados de manera taxativa en el canon 23 inciso c) de la LISR, siendo, únicamente, las sujetos quienes se encuentren en las condiciones señaladas en el inciso a) del artículo 3 de ese cuerpo normativo (entiéndase, el Estado, las Municipalidades, instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas que por ley especial gocen de exención y universidades estatales) y el Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, cuando inviertan en títulos valores emitidos por el Ministerio de Hacienda, donde se rescata con facilidad no se encuentra el FRE. La aplicación extensiva de la exención sería violatorio de los principios de reserva de ley, legalidad e igualdad. En ese sentido, coincide esta Sala con lo expresado en el fallo de que al no mencionar en forma expresa el legislador ordinario al FRE, como beneficiario de la exención que se analiza, ha de entenderse que el mismo no fue dispensado del pago de la referida obligación tributaria.",
"excerpt_en": "the legislator expressly designated the entities favored by the exemption, so the benefit corresponds only to those exhaustively listed in Article 23(c) of the LISR, namely, the subjects that meet the conditions described in Article 3(a) of that statute (i.e., the State, Municipalities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions that by special law enjoy exemption, and state universities) and the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, when investing in securities issued by the Ministry of Finance; it is readily apparent that the FRE is not included. An extensive application of the exemption would violate the principles of legality, tax reservation, and equality. In this regard, this Chamber agrees with the lower court’s finding that, since the ordinary legislator did not expressly name the FRE as a beneficiary of the exemption at issue, it must be understood that the FRE was not dispensed from paying the tax obligation in question.",
"outcome": {
"label_en": "Rejected",
"label_es": "Sin lugar",
"summary_en": "The Chamber rejects the claim to exempt the FRE from the 8% income tax withholding because it is not included as a beneficiary in the law, finding no legal violation.",
"summary_es": "La Sala rechaza la pretensión de eximir al FRE de la retención del 8 % del impuesto sobre la renta por no estar contemplado en la ley como beneficiario, sin que exista violación normativa."
},
"pull_quotes": [
{
"context": "Voto de mayoría",
"quote_en": "a tax exemption can only be granted by the express will of the legislator; it cannot be authorized for something not contemplated by law—that is, no exemption scenarios can be created by way of interpretation.",
"quote_es": "la exención tributaria solo puede ser otorgada por voluntad expresa del legislador, sin que pueda autorizarse a lo no contemplado legalmente, es decir, no cabría, vía interpretación, la creación de supuestos de exoneración."
},
{
"context": "Considerando IV",
"quote_en": "The absence of any mention of the Fund as a beneficiary or designated recipient of the cited tax benefit leads to the conclusion that it is in no way exempt from the aforementioned withholding.",
"quote_es": "La ausencia de mención del señalado Fondo como favorecido o destinatario del beneficio fiscal citado, permite concluir que el mismo no se encuentra en modo alguno exento de la retención supra indicada."
}
],
"cites": [],
"cited_by": [],
"references": {
"internal": [
{
"target_id": "norm-10969",
"kind": "concept_anchor",
"label": "Ley 7092 Art. 23 inciso c"
},
{
"target_id": "norm-43957",
"kind": "concept_anchor",
"label": "Ley 7983 Art. 72"
}
],
"external": []
},
"source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-162530",
"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-10969",
"norm_num": "7092",
"norm_name": "Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta",
"tipo_norma": "Ley",
"norm_fecha": "21/04/1988"
},
{
"doc_id": "norm-2340",
"norm_num": "",
"norm_name": "Ley Constitutiva de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social",
"tipo_norma": "",
"norm_fecha": ""
},
{
"doc_id": "norm-43957",
"norm_num": "7983",
"norm_name": "Ley de Protección al Trabajador",
"tipo_norma": "Ley",
"norm_fecha": "16/02/2000"
},
{
"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": "“IV.- \r\nEl objeto del proceso versa en si\r\nes o no de aplicación la exención del 8% establecida en el canon 23 de la LISR al FRE, en virtud de la existencia de normas legales que en\r\ncriterio de la parte recurrente lo dispensan de esa obligación tributaria. En\r\nprimer lugar hace uso del artículo 21 de su Ley Constitutiva de la CCSS, de\r\ndonde interpreta que al ser el FRE parte integrante\r\nde la Caja le alcanzan sus privilegios,\r\nademás apunta, la creación del Fondo fue por acuerdo de Junta Directiva, sin\r\nque se le considere como una figura autónoma o paralela de la\r\ninstitución. Sobre estas manifestaciones los jueces concluyeron: “el\r\nlegislador ordinario creó una exención a favor de las entidades señaladas en el\r\nnumeral 3 inciso a) de la Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta -sin mencionar expresamente al\r\nFRE-, pues las eximió del pago de la obligación\r\ntributaria que se comenta. La ausencia de mención del señalado Fondo como\r\nfavorecido o destinatario del beneficio fiscal citado, permite concluir que el\r\nmismo no se encuentra en modo alguno exento de la retención supra\r\nindicada, ni aún cuando la inversión en títulos valores, la haya realizado la\r\npropia CCSS con dineros del FRE,\r\npues los mismos no forman parte del patrimonio de la entidad, ni el referido\r\nFondo fue creado con una finalidad de fortalecer la seguridad social\r\nencomendada constitucional y legalmente a dicha entidad.” Por\r\notro lado, determinó el Tribunal, el no reconocer la exención del 8% no\r\nviolenta el numeral 58 de la ley Constitutiva de CCSS,\r\nen virtud de que: “.. la \"exención\" constituye una liberalidad\r\ndel legislador ordinario, quien ejerciendo su discrecionalidad legislativa,\r\nvalora la conveniencia de dispensar del pago de la obligación tributaria a\r\ndeterminados sujetos pasivos -por motivos de diversa índole-, sin que tal\r\nbeneficio fiscal, pueda extenderse a otros sujetos que no sean los expresamente\r\nseñalados por el legislador. Desde esa perspectiva, la \"exención\" a\r\nla que hace referencia el representante de la entidad accionada -prevista en el\r\nnumeral 58 de la Ley Constitutiva de la CCSS- es\r\ncomo el mismo reconoce, concedida en forma directa a dicha entidad y bajo\r\nninguna circunstancia, el manejo interno del Fondo -administración conjunta-,\r\nni la estructura organizacional a la que alude, constituyen justificaciones,\r\nargumentos, instrumentos o mecanismos que permitan entender extendida al FRE, tales exenciones concedidas a la CCSS”. Esta Sala ha tenido la oportunidad de referirse en\r\notras ocasiones sobre el tema de las exenciones y la interpretación de las\r\nnormas tributarias, donde se ha señalado: “ IV.- Finalidad de las normas que\r\ndisponen exenciones. La exención tributaria tiene lugar cuando\r\nuna norma contempla que en determinados supuestos expresamente previstos, no\r\nobstante producirse el hecho generador, no surge la obligación del sujeto\r\npasivo de cancelar la obligación tributaria. Forma parte de los denominados\r\n“beneficios fiscales”, los que suelen responder a una finalidad extrafiscal, o bien de estímulo a ciertas actividades. En\r\nmuchas ocasiones, estos beneficios se sustentan en la lógica del principio de\r\ncapacidad económica, o en otras razones que motivan la decisión del legislador.\r\nEn este sentido, dentro de la doctrina tributarista\r\nse constituyen y así deben considerarse, como mecanismos y herramientas propias\r\ndel entorno tributario. Constituyen vías que en el fondo pretenden y permiten,\r\nmediante condiciones estratégicas (que pueden ser temporales), el fomento,\r\ndesarrollo o promoción de un determinado sector económico, de ciertas áreas de\r\nactividad, contextos sociales, o bien, la equiparación de las condiciones\r\neconómicas para potenciar un estado de igualdad en la distribución de las\r\ncargas contributivas, a corto, mediano o largo plazo. En ocasiones, simplemente\r\nbuscan evitar que el sistema tributario se torne confiscatorio. De ahí que\r\nresulten inviables cuando tengan por fin un beneficio injustificado,\r\nincompatible con su finalidad parafiscal o se aparten de criterios razonables y\r\ndel sistema de valores propio de la Constitución Política. Así visto, su\r\ncreación no es incompatible con los principios de igualdad, generalidad y el\r\ndeber de contribuir con las cargas públicas que se desprende del numeral 18 de la Constitución Política, sino que son\r\nelementos que se complementan para lograr, en tesis de principio, un equilibrio\r\ny estabilidad en la situación fiscal del país en su dimensión integral. Es\r\ndecir, en el fondo buscan el cumplimiento de esos postulados, mediante acciones\r\nque se orientan a constituir un sistema revestido por condiciones de equidad en\r\ntérminos de capacidad económica y desarrollo. Por ende, en su nueva\r\nintegración, esta Sala considera que contrario al criterio hasta el momento\r\nsostenido en este campo, no constituyen estricto sensu,\r\nexcepciones al deber de contribuir, sino partes de un sistema que disponen la\r\ndispensa del pago del impuesto, o bien otros beneficios, que integralmente\r\nconsiderados, buscan mejorar, en sentido global, el sistema impositivo en\r\ntérminos cuantitativos y cualitativos. Lo anterior mediante la dispensa total o\r\nparcial del pago del impuesto o la disminución de su base de cálculo, ergo,\r\npueden recaer sobre la obligación tributaria en su plenitud, o bien, sobre la\r\nexclusión de aquella base de algunos componentes. Ante estas particularidades, su\r\nmanejo debe ser cuidadoso y cauteloso, pues su aplicación arbitraria puede\r\nhacer incurrir en afectaciones a los principios de generalidad y de igualdad,\r\ntrastornando su propia finalidad.”. (Resolución de esta Sala número\r\n399 de las 10 horas 40 minutos del 28 de junio de 2006). IV.-\r\nInterpretación de las normas tributarias y exenciones. Finalidad. Sobre\r\neste aspecto en concreto, en el voto mencionado supra\r\nnúmero 657, este Órgano decisor hizo las siguientes\r\nconsideraciones: “La labor hermenéutica de los mandatos que regulen\r\nrelaciones tributarias, debe realizarse dentro de los cauces de las reglas de\r\ninterpretación jurídica, comunes a todas las ramas del derecho acudiendo a sus\r\ndiversos métodos, a fin de precisar los alcances y particularidades de un\r\ndeterminado mandato, de modo que la formulación hipotética, aplicada a la\r\npraxis diaria, cumpla su cometido intrínseco y el fin que ha dispuesto el\r\nlegislador para su emisión. En este sentido, el numeral 6 del Código de Normas\r\ny Procedimientos Tributarios establece: “Las normas tributarias se deben\r\ninterpretar con arreglo a todos los métodos admitidos por el Derecho Común./ La analogía es procedimiento admisible para llenar los\r\nvacíos legales pero en virtud de ella no pueden crearse tributos ni exenciones .”\r\n(El resaltado no es del original). En esta labor, a tono con el principio de\r\nigualdad constitucional, es claro que el intérprete debe ponderar las diversas\r\nvariables que convergen en cada situación, dentro de ellas, la naturaleza de la\r\ndisposición, procurando que su uso, en la forma y alcances que establezca, sea\r\nigual para todos los casos similares y evitar una aplicación material que burle\r\nla finalidad misma de su contenido. Los medios de que el operador jurídico, se\r\nsirve para llevar a cabo este proceso, son principalmente el filológico o\r\ngramatical, lógico, histórico, sociológico y finalista. El artículo 10 del\r\nCódigo Civil, al cual remite el canon 6 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos\r\nTributarios, en relación a la interpretación de las reglas tributarias,\r\ncontempla estos elementos: “ Las normas se interpretarán según el sentido\r\npropio de sus palabras, en relación con el contexto, los antecedentes\r\nhistóricos y legislativos y la realidad social del tiempo en que han de ser\r\naplicadas, atendiendo fundamentalmente al espíritu y finalidad de ellas ”. La\r\nexégesis de las normas tributarias, en tesis de principio, no puede ser\r\nrestrictiva. El tributo se particulariza por su coactividad, en tanto dimana del\r\nejercicio del Poder Público, que mediante esta vía, impone, al amparo de la Constitución, gravámenes económicos\r\na los sujetos pasivos. Pero además, se identifica por su carácter contributivo\r\nen tanto su finalidad es colaborar con las cargas públicas, a fin de dotar al\r\nEstado de los recursos adecuados que le permitan desplegar su marco funcional y\r\nprestacional a favor de la colectividad. Esto desde\r\nluego no excluye que en ciertos casos, este tipo de cargas nazcan con un\r\nobjetivo diferente, como sería el caso del criterio de la parafiscalidad.\r\nDesde este plano, las normas tributarias no pueden ser consideradas\r\nexcepcionales o bien, limitativas de los derechos de los particulares, dado que\r\nese carácter llevaría a que su aplicación y por tanto su interpretación, fuese\r\nigualmente restrictivo. Dentro de este enfoque entonces, las normas que\r\ncontengan regulaciones del tipo referido, deben ser ponderadas sin sujeción a\r\nningún criterio especial o específico. En esta tarea, d ebe\r\nrecordarse que la norma transcrita establece en su párrafo final un límite\r\nobjetivo a esta labor exegética, tal cual es, la imposibilidad de\r\ncrear tributos o exenciones vía analógica, mecanismo que si bien es útil para\r\nllenar los vacíos legales, no puede suplir en estos términos, el papel del\r\nlegislador en virtud del principio de reserva legal. Así visto, el\r\ncampo de la creación de gravámenes y beneficios tributarios está vedado por\r\neste medio, siendo por ende figuras que deben crearse por una manifestación\r\nlegislativa formal, en los términos ya explicitados con antelación. En suma, el\r\noperador jurídico debe analizar en cada caso, el contenido de la norma, para\r\nestablecer los cauces debidos de su aplicación, a tono con los parámetros ya\r\nseñalados, a fin de que el mandato cumpla su cometido y en el caso de la\r\nmateria tributaria, se satisfaga la finalidad inmersa en la manifestación\r\nlegislativa, sea imponer cargas tributarias, establecer marcos de beneficios y\r\ndemás asuntos inherentes a la relación jurídico tributaria que de aquella se\r\ndesprenda.” (Destacado en negrita, corresponde al original y el subrayado\r\nes propio. Sentencia No. 091-2011 de las 8 horas 55 minutos del 3 de febrero de\r\n2011). Con base en la jurisprudencia de esta Cámara y la correcta\r\ninterpretación normativa, es claro que la exención tributaria solo puede\r\nser otorgada por voluntad expresa del legislador, sin que pueda autorizarse a\r\nlo no contemplado legalmente, es decir, no cabría, vía interpretación, la\r\ncreación de supuestos de exoneración. Ha sido reiterativo el criterio de\r\nque en materia tributaria impera el principio de reserva de ley, estipulado en\r\nel artículo 5 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, el cual\r\ndispone que únicamente por voluntad del legislador ordinario vía ley, se pueden\r\ncrear, modificar o suprimir tributos. Así como eximir de su pago a determinados\r\nsujetos, especificando las condiciones y requisitos para su otorgamiento.\r\nAdemás, el legislador designó de manera expresa las entidades favorecidas de la\r\nexención, por lo que el beneficio corresponde a los indicados de manera\r\ntaxativa en el canon 23 inciso c) de la LISR,\r\nsiendo, únicamente, las sujetos quienes se encuentren en las condiciones\r\nseñaladas en el inciso a) del artículo 3 de ese cuerpo normativo (entiéndase,\r\nel Estado, las Municipalidades, instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas\r\nque por ley especial gocen de exención y universidades estatales) y el Banco\r\nPopular y de Desarrollo Comunal, cuando inviertan en títulos valores emitidos\r\npor el Ministerio de Hacienda, donde se rescata con facilidad no se encuentra\r\nel FRE. La aplicación extensiva de la exención sería\r\nviolatorio de los principios de reserva de ley, legalidad e igualdad. En ese\r\nsentido, coincide esta Sala con lo expresado en el fallo de que al no mencionar\r\nen forma expresa el legislador ordinario al FRE, como\r\nbeneficiario de la exención que se analiza, ha de entenderse que el mismo no\r\nfue dispensado del pago de la referida obligación tributaria. El FRE fue creado en beneficio de los servidores de la Institución para tutelar los \r\nintereses particulares de los integrantes de este, no procede la extensión de\r\nlos beneficios otorgados a la CCSS que\r\npor mandato constitucional se le exime del pago de tributos con el fin de\r\ngarantizar el desarrollo y permanencia del régimen de seguridad. En cuanto a\r\nla inobservancia del numeral 72 de la Ley de Protección al Trabajador el\r\nTribunal resolvió: “Igualmente, tampoco es posible vía artículo 72 de la Ley de Protección al Trabajador,\r\nacceder a la pretendida \"exención\" (…) para poder gozar de la misma,\r\nse requiere que los Fondos -de pensiones, (…) sean administrados e invertidos\r\npor Operadoras o bien, por las Organizaciones Sociales que menciona el artículo\r\n30 de dicha Ley. (…) una vez autorizadas por la Superintendencia de Pensiones -SUPEN- y registradas ante dicho órgano”. Estima esta Sala, si bien el FRE\r\nestá sujeto a la supervisión de la Supen, no\r\ncumple con lo estipulado en el artículo 30 de la Ley de Protección al Trabajador,\r\npues no es administrado por una operadora de pensiones, de manera tal, no le es\r\naplicable el beneficio establecido de la exención de pago de la retención del\r\n8% establecida en el canon 72 de la Ley de Protección del Trabajador. En\r\ncuanto a la exención de los rendimientos que generen las inversiones en títulos\r\nvalores que realice el Fondo de reiterada cita, al no ser administrado por una\r\nentidad autorizada, y no existir norma legal alguna que permita exonerar del\r\npago de la retención de cita a dicho fondo, lo pretendido no es posible.\r\nEn virtud de lo expuesto al no concretarse la\r\nviolación normativa formulada procede el rechazo del cargo.”",
"body_en_text": "“IV.- \nThe object of the proceeding turns on whether the 8% exemption established in canon 23 of the LISR applies to the FRE, by virtue of the existence of legal norms that, in the opinion of the appellant, release it from that tax obligation. Firstly, it invokes Article 21 of the Constitutive Law of the CCSS, from which it interprets that since the FRE is an integral part of the Caja, it is reached by its privileges; furthermore, it points out that the Fund was created by agreement of the Board of Directors, without it being considered an autonomous or parallel figure of the institution. On these statements, the judges concluded: “*the ordinary legislature created an exemption in favor of the entities indicated in numeral 3, subsection a) of the Income Tax Law—without expressly mentioning the FRE—since it exempted them from payment of the tax obligation under discussion. The absence of mention of the aforementioned Fund as favored or recipient of the cited tax benefit allows the conclusion that it is in no way exempt from the supra-indicated withholding, not even when the investment in securities was carried out by the CCSS itself with funds from the FRE, since these do not form part of the entity’s assets, nor was the referred Fund created with the purpose of strengthening the social security constitutionally and legally entrusted to said entity.*” \n\nOn the other hand, the Court determined that failure to recognize the 8% exemption does not violate numeral 58 of the Constitutive Law of the CCSS, by virtue of the fact that: “*.. the 'exemption' constitutes a liberality of the ordinary legislature, who, in the exercise of its legislative discretion, assesses the advisability of releasing certain passive subjects from payment of the tax obligation—for reasons of diverse nature—without such tax benefit being extendable to other subjects not expressly indicated by the legislature. From that perspective, the 'exemption' referred to by the representative of the defendant entity—provided for in numeral 58 of the Constitutive Law of the CCSS—is, as he himself recognizes, granted directly to said entity, and under no circumstance do the internal management of the Fund—joint administration—nor the organizational structure to which he alludes, constitute justifications, arguments, instruments, or mechanisms that allow understanding said exemptions granted to the CCSS as extended to the FRE.*” \n\nThis Chamber has had the opportunity to refer on other occasions to the subject of exemptions and the interpretation of tax norms, where it has stated: “*IV.- Purpose of norms that provide for exemptions. A tax exemption (exención tributaria) takes place when a norm contemplates that in certain expressly provided-for situations, despite the occurrence of the taxable event, the obligation of the passive subject to pay the tax obligation does not arise. It forms part of the so-called “tax benefits,” which usually respond to a non-tax (extrafiscal) purpose, or to the stimulation of certain activities. On many occasions, these benefits are based on the logic of the economic capacity principle, or on other reasons that motivate the legislature’s decision. In this sense, within tax doctrine (doctrina tributarista) they are constituted, and should be considered, as mechanisms and tools proper to the tax environment. They constitute avenues that, in essence, seek and allow, through strategic conditions (which may be temporary), the fostering, development, or promotion of a specific economic sector, of certain areas of activity, social contexts, or the leveling of economic conditions to promote a state of equality in the distribution of contributory burdens, in the short, medium, or long term. On occasions, they simply seek to prevent the tax system from becoming confiscatory. Hence, they are unviable when their purpose is an unjustified benefit, incompatible with their parafiscal purpose or when they depart from reasonable criteria and the value system proper to the Political Constitution. Thus seen, their creation is not incompatible with the principles of equality, generality, and the duty to contribute to public burdens that stems from numeral 18 of the Political Constitution, but rather they are elements that complement each other to achieve, in principle, a balance and stability in the country’s fiscal situation in its integral dimension. That is to say, they fundamentally seek the fulfillment of those postulates, through actions oriented towards constituting a system clothed in conditions of equity in terms of economic capacity and development. Therefore, in its new composition, this Chamber considers that, contrary to the criterion held until now in this field, they do not constitute, stricto sensu, exceptions to the duty to contribute, but rather parts of a system that provide for the release from payment of the tax, or other benefits, which, integrally considered, seek to improve, in a global sense, the tax system in quantitative and qualitative terms. The foregoing through the total or partial release from the tax payment or the reduction of its calculation base, ergo, they can fall upon the tax obligation in its fullness, or upon the exclusion of some components from that base. Given these particularities, its handling must be careful and cautious, since its arbitrary application can cause impacts on the principles of generality and equality, distorting its very purpose.”* (Resolution of this Chamber number 399 at 10:40 a.m. on June 28, 2006). \n\n*IV.- Interpretation of tax norms and exemptions. Purpose. On this specific aspect, in vote number 657 mentioned supra, this Deciding Body made the following considerations: “The hermeneutic work on mandates that regulate tax relations must be carried out within the channels of the rules of legal interpretation, common to all branches of law, drawing upon their various methods, in order to specify the scope and particularities of a given mandate, so that the hypothetical formulation, applied to daily practice, fulfills its intrinsic task and the purpose the legislature has provided for its issuance. In this sense, numeral 6 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures establishes: ‘Tax norms must be interpreted in accordance with all the methods admitted by the Common Law./ Analogy is an admissible procedure to fill legal gaps, but by virtue of it, neither tributes nor exemptions can be created.’ (The highlighting is not from the original). In this work, in tune with the principle of constitutional equality, it is clear that the interpreter must weigh the diverse variables that converge in each situation, including the nature of the provision, seeking that its use, in the form and scope it establishes, be equal for all similar cases, and avoiding a material application that circumvents the very purpose of its content. The means the legal operator uses to carry out this process are principally the philological or grammatical, logical, historical, sociological, and teleological. Article 10 of the Civil Code, to which canon 6 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures remits, in relation to the interpretation of tax rules, contemplates these elements: ‘Norms shall be interpreted according to the proper sense of their words, in relation to the context, the historical and legislative antecedents, and the social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, attending fundamentally to their spirit and purpose.’ The exegesis of tax norms, in principle, cannot be restrictive.*”\n\n**\"IV.-** The object of the proceeding concerns whether or not the 8% exemption established in canon 23 of the LISR is applicable to the FRE, by virtue of the existence of legal provisions which, in the opinion of the appellant, excuse it from that tax obligation. First, it relies on Article 21 of the Constitutive Law of the CCSS, from which it interprets that since the FRE is an integral part of the Caja, its privileges extend to it; it further notes that the Fund was created by Board of Directors agreement, without it being considered an autonomous or parallel figure of the institution. Regarding these assertions, the judges concluded: \"*the ordinary legislator created an exemption in favor of the entities indicated in numeral 3 subsection a) of the Income Tax Law (Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta) -without expressly mentioning the FRE-, as it exempted them from the payment of the tax obligation in question. The absence of mention of said Fund as favored by or recipient of the cited tax benefit allows for the conclusion that it is in no way exempt from the aforementioned withholding, not even when the CCSS itself made the investment in securities using FRE funds, as these do not form part of the entity's assets, nor was the Fund created for the purpose of strengthening the social security entrusted constitutionally and legally to said entity.\"*\n\nOn the other hand, the Court determined that failing to recognize the 8% exemption does not violate numeral 58 of the Constitutive Law of the CCSS, by virtue of the fact that: \".. *the 'exemption' constitutes a liberality of the ordinary legislator, who, exercising his legislative discretion, assesses the advisability of excusing certain passive subjects (sujetos pasivos) from the payment of the tax obligation -for diverse reasons-, without such tax benefit being extendable to other subjects other than those expressly indicated by the legislator. From that perspective, the 'exemption' to which the representative of the respondent entity refers -provided for in numeral 58 of the Constitutive Law (Ley Constitutiva) of the CCSS- is, as he himself acknowledges, granted directly to said entity and under no circumstances do the internal management of the Fund -joint administration-, nor the organizational structure to which he alludes, constitute justifications, arguments, instruments, or mechanisms that would allow such exemptions granted to the CCSS to be understood as extended to the FRE.\"*\n\nThis Chamber has had the opportunity to address the issue of exemptions and the interpretation of tax provisions on other occasions, where it has been stated: *\"IV.- Purpose of provisions providing for exemptions. Tax exemption occurs when a provision contemplates that, in certain expressly provided-for cases, notwithstanding the occurrence of the taxable event (hecho generador), the obligation of the passive subject to pay the tax obligation does not arise. It forms part of the so-called 'tax benefits,' which usually respond to a non-fiscal (extrafiscal) purpose, or one of stimulating certain activities. On many occasions, these benefits are based on the logic of the ability-to-pay principle, or on other reasons that motivate the legislator's decision. In this sense, within tax law doctrine (doctrina tributarista), they constitute and must be considered as mechanisms and tools proper to the tax environment. They constitute avenues that, at their core, seek and allow, through strategic conditions (which may be temporary), the promotion, development, or encouragement of a specific economic sector, certain areas of activity, social contexts, or the equalization of economic conditions to foster equality in the distribution of contributory burdens, in the short, medium, or long term. At times, they simply seek to prevent the tax system from becoming confiscatory. Hence, they are unviable when their purpose is an unjustified benefit, incompatible with their non-fiscal (parafiscal) purpose, or when they depart from reasonable criteria and the value system proper to the Political Constitution (la Constitución Política). Thus viewed, their creation is not incompatible with the principles of equality, generality, and the duty to contribute to public burdens that derives from numeral 18 of the Political Constitution (la Constitución Política), but they are complementary elements aimed at achieving, in principle, a balance and stability in the country's fiscal situation in its integral dimension. That is, at their core, they seek compliance with these postulates, through actions oriented toward constituting a system vested with conditions of equity in terms of economic capacity and development. Therefore, in its new integration, this Chamber considers that, contrary to the criterion previously held in this field, they do not constitute, in the strict sense (stricto sensu), exceptions to the duty to contribute, but rather parts of a system that provide for the dispensation from tax payment, or other benefits, which, integrally considered, seek to improve, in a global sense, the tax system in quantitative and qualitative terms. The foregoing through the total or partial dispensation from tax payment or the reduction of its calculation base, ergo, they may fall upon the tax obligation in its fullness, or upon the exclusion of some components from that base. Given these particularities, their handling must be careful and cautious, as their arbitrary application may lead to infringements upon the principles of generality and equality, disrupting their very purpose.\".* *(Resolution of this Chamber number 399 of 10 hours 40 minutes on June 28, 2006). IV.- Interpretation of tax provisions and exemptions. Purpose. On this specific aspect, in the aforementioned vote number 657, this Deciding Body (Órgano decisor) made the following considerations:* *\"The hermeneutic task of mandates regulating tax relations must be carried out within the channels of legal interpretation rules, common to all branches of law, resorting to their various methods, in order to specify the scope and particularities of a given mandate, so that the hypothetical formulation, applied to daily practice, fulfills its intrinsic purpose and the aim the legislator has established for its issuance. In this sense, numeral 6 of the Code of Tax Standards and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) establishes: 'Tax provisions shall be interpreted in accordance with all methods admitted by Common Law./ Analogy is an admissible procedure to fill legal gaps, but by virtue thereof, taxes or exemptions may not be created.' (The highlighting is not from the original). In this task, in accordance with the principle of constitutional equality, it is clear that the interpreter must weigh the various variables that converge in each situation, including the nature of the provision, seeking to ensure that its application, in the form and scope it establishes, is equal for all similar cases and avoids a material application that evades the very purpose of its content. The means the legal operator (operador jurídico) uses to carry out this process are primarily the philological or grammatical, logical, historical, sociological, and teleological. Article 10 of the Civil Code, to which canon 6 of the Code of Tax Standards and Procedures refers regarding the interpretation of tax rules, contemplates these elements: 'The provisions shall be interpreted according to the proper meaning of their words, in relation to the context, the historical and legislative background, and the social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, attending fundamentally to the spirit and purpose thereof.' The exegesis of tax provisions, in principle, cannot be restrictive.\"*\n\nThe tax (tributo) is particularized by its coerciveness (coactividad), as it emanates from the exercise of Public Power, which, through this means, imposes, under the protection of la Constitución, economic levies on passive subjects. But furthermore, it is identified by its contributory character as its purpose is to collaborate with public burdens, in order to endow the State with the adequate resources that allow it to deploy its functional and benefit-providing (prestacional) framework for the benefit of the community. This, of course, does not exclude that in certain cases, this type of burden arises with a different objective, as would be the case with the criterion of parafiscality (parafiscalidad). From this perspective, tax provisions cannot be considered exceptional or limiting of the rights of individuals, given that such a character would lead to their application and therefore their interpretation being similarly restrictive. Within this approach then, provisions containing regulations of the aforementioned type must be weighed without subjection to any special or specific criterion. In this task, *it must be remembered that the transcribed provision establishes in its final paragraph an objective limit to this exegetical task, which is the impossibility of creating taxes or exemptions via analogy, a mechanism that, while useful for filling legal gaps, cannot supplant, in these terms, the role of the legislator by virtue of the principle of legal reserve (reserva legal).* *Thus seen, the field of creating levies and tax benefits is forbidden through this means, being therefore figures that must be created by a formal legislative manifestation, in the terms already explained previously. In sum, the legal operator must analyze in each case the content of the provision, to establish the proper channels for its application, in accordance with the parameters already indicated, so that the mandate fulfills its purpose and, in the case of tax matters, the finality immersed in the legislative manifestation is satisfied, be it imposing tax burdens, establishing benefit frameworks, and other matters inherent to the legal-tax relationship that derives therefrom.\"* (Bold highlighting corresponds to the original and the underlining is ours. Judgment No. 091-2011 of 8 hours 55 minutes on February 3, 2011). Based on the jurisprudence of this Chamber and the correct normative interpretation, it is clear that a tax exemption can only be granted by the express will of the legislator, without extending it to what is not legally contemplated, that is, the creation of exoneration scenarios would not be possible via interpretation.\n\nIt has been a reiterated criterion that in tax matters the principle of legal reserve (reserva de ley) prevails, stipulated in Article 5 of the Code of Tax Standards and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), which provides that exclusively by the will of the ordinary legislator, via law, can taxes be created, modified, or suppressed. As well as exempting certain subjects from their payment, specifying the conditions and requirements for their granting. Furthermore, the legislator expressly designated the entities favored by the exemption, such that the benefit corresponds to those exhaustively indicated (taxativa) in canon 23 subsection c) of la LISR, being, solely, those subjects who meet the conditions set out in subsection a) of Article 3 of that normative body (understood to be, the State, Municipalities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions that by special law enjoy exemption, and state universities) and the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, when they invest in securities issued by the Ministry of Finance, where it is easily noted that the FRE is not found. The extended application of the exemption would violate the principles of legal reserve, legality, and equality. In that sense, this Chamber agrees with what was expressed in the ruling that, by not expressly mentioning the FRE as a beneficiary of the exemption being analyzed, it must be understood that it was not excused from the payment of the referred tax obligation. The FRE was created for the benefit of the servants of la Institución to safeguard the particular interests of its members; the extension of the benefits granted to la CCSS, which by constitutional mandate is exempted from the payment of taxes in order to guarantee the development and permanence of the security regime, is not appropriate. Regarding the non-observance of numeral 72 of la Ley de Protección al Trabajador, the Court resolved: \"*Likewise, it is also not possible, via Article 72 of la Ley de Protección al Trabajador, to access the intended 'exemption' (…) to be able to enjoy it, it is required that the Funds -pension funds, (…) be administered and invested by Operators (Operadoras) or by the Social Organizations mentioned in Article 30 of said Law. (…) once authorized by la Superintendencia de Pensiones -SUPEN- and registered before said body*\".\n\nThis Chamber considers that, although the FRE is subject to the supervision of la Supen, it does not comply with the stipulations of Article 30 of la Ley de Protección al Trabajador, since it is not administered by a pension operator (operadora de pensiones), therefore, the established benefit of exemption from payment of the 8% withholding tax established in canon 72 of la Ley de Protección del Trabajador is not applicable to it. Regarding the exemption of the yields generated by investments in securities made by the repeatedly cited Fund, since it is not administered by an authorized entity, and no legal provision exists that would allow exempting said fund from the payment of the mentioned withholding tax, what is sought is not possible.\n\nBy virtue of the foregoing, since the alleged normative violation has not materialized, the charge is rejected.\"\n\nThe tax is particularized by its coerciveness, insofar as it emanates from the exercise of Public Power, which, through this means, imposes, under the protection of the Constitution, economic levies on the passive subjects. But furthermore, it is identified by its contributory character, insofar as its purpose is to collaborate with public burdens, in order to provide the State with the adequate resources that allow it to deploy its functional and service-provision framework for the benefit of the community. This, of course, does not exclude that in certain cases, this type of burdens arise with a different objective, as would be the case of the criterion of parafiscality (parafiscalidad).\n\nFrom this standpoint, tax norms cannot be considered exceptional or restrictive of the rights of individuals, given that such a character would lead to their application, and therefore their interpretation, being equally restrictive. Within this approach, then, norms containing regulations of the referred type must be weighed without being subject to any special or specific criterion. In this task, it must be remembered that the transcribed norm establishes in its final paragraph an objective limit to this exegetical task, which is the impossibility of creating taxes or exemptions via analogy, a mechanism that, while useful for filling legal gaps, cannot, in these terms, supplant the role of the legislator by virtue of the principle of legal reserve (reserva legal). Thus seen, the field of creating levies and tax benefits is forbidden by this means, being therefore figures that must be created through a formal legislative manifestation, in the terms already explained previously. In summary, the legal operator must analyze, in each case, the content of the norm, to establish the proper channels for its application, in accordance with the parameters already indicated, so that the mandate fulfills its purpose, and in the case of tax matters, satisfies the purpose immersed in the legislative manifestation, that is, imposing tax burdens, establishing benefit frameworks, and other matters inherent to the tax legal relationship that derives from it.” (Bold highlighting corresponds to the original and the underlining is our own. Judgment No. 091-2011 of 8:55 a.m. on February 3, 2011).\n\nBased on the case law of this Chamber and the correct normative interpretation, it is clear that the tax exemption (exención tributaria) can only be granted by the express will of the legislator, without it being possible to authorize what is not legally contemplated, that is, the creation of scenarios of exoneration would not be possible via interpretation. The criterion has been reiterated that in tax matters the principle of legal reserve (principio de reserva de ley) prevails, stipulated in Article 5 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), which provides that only by the will of the ordinary legislator via law, can taxes be created, modified, or suppressed. As well as exempting certain subjects from their payment, specifying the conditions and requirements for their granting. Furthermore, the legislator expressly designated the entities favored by the exemption, so the benefit corresponds to those indicated exhaustively in canon 23, subsection c) of the LISR, being, solely, the subjects who meet the conditions indicated in subsection a) of Article 3 of that normative body (understood as the State, the Municipalities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions that by special law enjoy an exemption, and state universities) and the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, when they invest in securities issued by the Ministry of Finance, from which it is easily noted that the FRE is not included. The extensive application of the exemption would violate the principles of legal reserve (reserva de ley), legality (legalidad), and equality (igualdad). In this sense, this Chamber agrees with what was expressed in the ruling that by not expressly mentioning the FRE as a beneficiary of the exemption under analysis, it must be understood that it was not dispensed from the payment of the referred tax obligation. The FRE was created for the benefit of the employees of the Institution to safeguard the particular interests of its members; the extension of the benefits granted to the CCSS—which by constitutional mandate is exempted from tax payment in order to guarantee the development and permanence of the security regime—does not proceed.\n\nRegarding the disregard of numeral 72 of the Worker Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Trabajador), the Court resolved: “Likewise, it is also not possible via Article 72 of the Worker Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Trabajador) to access the intended ‘exemption’ (…) in order to enjoy it, it is required that the Funds—pension funds, (…) be administered and invested by Operators or, by the Social Organizations mentioned in Article 30 of said Law. (…) once authorized by the Superintendency of Pensions (Superintendencia de Pensiones)—SUPEN—and registered before said body.” This Chamber considers that, although the FRE is subject to the supervision of the SUPEN, it does not comply with what is stipulated in Article 30 of the Worker Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Trabajador), as it is not administered by a pension operator; consequently, the established benefit of the exemption from the payment of the 8% withholding established in canon 72 of the Worker Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Trabajador) is not applicable to it. Regarding the exemption of the yields generated by the investments in securities made by the repeatedly cited Fund, since it is not administered by an authorized entity, and no legal norm exists that allows exempting said fund from the payment of the cited withholding, what is sought is not possible.\n\nBy virtue of the foregoing, since the alleged normative violation has not materialized, the rejection of the charge is appropriate."
}