{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-308501",
  "citation": "Res. 00100-2021 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VII",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "Caja de ANDE debe pagar patente municipal en Santa Cruz",
  "title_en": "Caja de ANDE must pay municipal patent tax in Santa Cruz",
  "summary_es": "Esta sentencia del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección VII, analiza si la Caja de Ahorro y Préstamos de la Asociación Nacional de Educadores (Caja de ANDE) está obligada a pagar el impuesto de patente municipal en el cantón de Santa Cruz. El Tribunal concluye que sí debe pagarlo y tramitar la licencia comercial correspondiente. Aunque una ley de 1981 interpretó que Caja de ANDE es un ente sin fines de lucro y la exoneró del impuesto sobre la renta, esa exención no cubrió patentes municipales. Además, la exención genérica de impuestos municipales que tenían las cooperativas según la Ley 4179 no se extiende a Caja de ANDE porque la Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Santa Cruz (Ley 7182 de 1990) es posterior y, según la Ley Reguladora de Exoneraciones (Ley 7293), las exenciones tributarias no alcanzan impuestos creados después. El Tribunal también desestimó el argumento de que Caja de ANDE no realiza actividades lucrativas, pues se probó que mantiene una sucursal en Santa Cruz que genera utilidades, y la actora no demostró lo contrario. La decisión municipal se consideró conforme a derecho.",
  "summary_en": "This ruling by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, Section VII, analyzes whether the Savings and Loan Association of the National Educators' Association (Caja de ANDE) is obligated to pay the municipal patent tax in the canton of Santa Cruz. The Tribunal concludes that it must pay the tax and obtain the corresponding commercial license. Although a 1981 law interpreted Caja de ANDE as a non-profit entity and exempted it from income tax, that exemption did not cover municipal patent taxes. Additionally, the generic exemption from municipal taxes that cooperatives had under Law 4179 does not extend to Caja de ANDE because the Santa Cruz Municipal Taxes Law (Law 7182 of 1990) is subsequent, and under the Law Regulating Exemptions (Law 7293), tax exemptions do not apply to taxes created later. The Tribunal also dismissed the argument that Caja de ANDE does not carry out lucrative activities, as it was proven that it maintains a branch in Santa Cruz that generates profits, and the plaintiff failed to prove otherwise. The municipal decision was deemed lawful.",
  "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VII",
  "date": "08/11/2021",
  "year": "2021",
  "topic_ids": [
    "_off-topic"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "impuesto de patente",
    "Caja de ANDE",
    "Municipalidad de Santa Cruz",
    "exención tributaria",
    "actividad lucrativa",
    "licencia comercial",
    "Código Municipal art. 88",
    "Ley 7182"
  ],
  "article_citations": [
    {
      "law": "Interpretación auténtica de la Ley N° 6450 \"Ref. Código Fiscal, Renta, Fondo Educación Superior Acciones Portador\",  y adiciona la N° 5185 \"Reforma Integral a la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas y Creación del Instituto Nacional de Fomento Cooperativo\"",
      "article": "1",
      "doc_id": "norm-36204",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 6605",
      "article": "1",
      "doc_id": "norm-36204",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Interpretación auténtica de la Ley N° 6450 \"Ref. Código Fiscal, Renta, Fondo Educación Superior Acciones Portador\",  y adiciona la N° 5185 \"Reforma Integral a la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas y Creación del Instituto Nacional de Fomento Cooperativo\"",
      "article": "2",
      "doc_id": "norm-36204",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 6605",
      "article": "2",
      "doc_id": "norm-36204",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Reforma Integral a Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas",
      "article": "6",
      "doc_id": "norm-36052",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 6756",
      "article": "6",
      "doc_id": "norm-36052",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Impuestos Municipales de Santa Cruz",
      "article": "1",
      "doc_id": "norm-831",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 7182",
      "article": "1",
      "doc_id": "norm-831",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley Reguladora de Exoneraciones Vigentes, Derogatorias y Excepciones",
      "article": "50",
      "doc_id": "norm-32135",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 7293",
      "article": "50",
      "doc_id": "norm-32135",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Código Municipal",
      "article": "79",
      "doc_id": "norm-40197",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 7794",
      "article": "79",
      "doc_id": "norm-40197",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Código Municipal",
      "article": "88",
      "doc_id": "norm-40197",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 7794",
      "article": "88",
      "doc_id": "norm-40197",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo",
      "article": "220",
      "doc_id": "norm-57436",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 8508",
      "article": "220",
      "doc_id": "norm-57436",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Código Procesal Civil",
      "article": "41",
      "doc_id": "norm-81360",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 9342",
      "article": "41",
      "doc_id": "norm-81360",
      "source": "metadata"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "impuesto de patente",
    "patente municipal",
    "Caja de ANDE",
    "Municipalidad de Santa Cruz",
    "exención tributaria",
    "licencia comercial",
    "Código Municipal",
    "Ley 7182",
    "Ley 6605",
    "actividad lucrativa",
    "Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "patent tax",
    "municipal patent",
    "Caja de ANDE",
    "Municipality of Santa Cruz",
    "tax exemption",
    "commercial license",
    "Municipal Code",
    "Law 7182",
    "Law 6605",
    "lucrative activity",
    "Contentious Administrative Procedure Code"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "Partiendo de lo anterior y sustentados en lo dispuesto por el ordenamiento jurídico, incluyendo las resoluciones jurisprudenciales citadas previamente, esta Cámara concluye que, tal y como lo ha resuelto el Ayuntamiento, a la entidad gestionante y aquí demandante, no le asiste el derecho de ejercer sus actividades lucrativas sin tramitar y adquirir la licencia comercial que estatuye el artículo 88 del Código Municipal, por lo que debe proceder a gestionarla y realizar el respectivo pago del impuesto de patente.\n\nAdaptando nuestro caso a lo señalado por la Sala Primera de Casación y conforme a la normativa jurídica que resulta aplicable conforme hasta lo ahora expuesto, diremos entonces, que la Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Santa Cruz, Ley N° 7182, mediante la cual se reguló el pago del impuesto de patentes de dicho cantón, tiene vigencia desde el 24 de julio de 1990, lo que implica claramente que es un tributo posterior a la exoneración genérica creada por el artículo 6 inciso b) de la Ley N° 4179 del 22 de agosto de 1968. En tal sentido, al amparo de la reforma dispuesta en el numeral 50 de la Ley N° 7293 al precepto 63 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, las exenciones tributarias no pueden ser extendidas a los impuestos que sean creados con posterioridad.",
  "excerpt_en": "Based on the foregoing and supported by the legal system, including the jurisprudential rulings previously cited, this Chamber concludes that, as the Municipality decided, the managing entity and plaintiff herein is not entitled to carry out its lucrative activities without processing and acquiring the commercial license established by Article 88 of the Municipal Code, and must therefore proceed to apply for it and make the corresponding payment of the patent tax.\n\nAdapting our case to what the First Chamber of Cassation stated and according to the applicable legal provisions as set forth, we state that the Santa Cruz Municipal Taxes Law, Law No. 7182, which regulated the payment of patent taxes in that canton, has been in effect since July 24, 1990, which clearly implies that it is a tax subsequent to the generic exemption created by Article 6(b) of Law No. 4179 of August 22, 1968. In this sense, under the reform established in Article 50 of Law No. 7293 to Article 63 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, tax exemptions cannot be extended to taxes created later.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Denied",
    "label_es": "Sin lugar",
    "summary_en": "The claim is dismissed; Caja de ANDE must pay the municipal patent tax.",
    "summary_es": "Se declara sin lugar la demanda de Caja de ANDE; debe pagar patente municipal."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando VIII",
      "quote_en": "Caja de ANDE is not covered by the exemption that was once provided in the Cooperative Associations Law No. 4179 of August 22, 1968, amended by Article 1 of Law No. 6756 of May 5, 1982.",
      "quote_es": "Caja de ANDE no está cobijada dentro de la exención que en su momento se había dispuesto en la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas N° 4179 del 22 de agosto de 1968, reformada por el artículo 1° de la Ley N° 6756 del 5 de mayo de 1982."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando VIII",
      "quote_en": "Tax exemptions cannot be extended to taxes created later.",
      "quote_es": "Las exenciones tributarias no pueden ser extendidas a los impuestos que sean creados con posterioridad."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando VIII",
      "quote_en": "Caja de ANDE does carry out a lucrative commercial activity that generates a profit, and therefore, pursuant to former Article 79, currently Article 88 of the Municipal Code, the plaintiff must have the respective municipal license to carry out its commercial activity, which shall be obtained through the payment of a tax.",
      "quote_es": "Caja de ANDE sí realiza una actividad comercial lucrativa que le genera una ganancia, y por ende, conforme al otrora artículo 79, hoy día 88 del Código Municipal, la demandante deberá contar con la licencia municipal respectiva para ejercer su actividad comercial, la cual se obtendrá mediante el pago de un impuesto."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [
    {
      "id": "norm-36052",
      "citation": "Ley 6756",
      "title_en": "Law on Cooperative Associations",
      "title_es": "Reforma Integral a Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "05/05/1982",
      "year": "1982"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-32135",
      "citation": "Ley 7293",
      "title_en": "Law Regulating Current Exemptions",
      "title_es": "Ley Reguladora de Exoneraciones Vigentes",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "31/03/1992",
      "year": "1992"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-40197",
      "citation": "Ley 7794",
      "title_en": "Municipal Code",
      "title_es": "Código Municipal",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "30/04/1998",
      "year": "1998"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-57436",
      "citation": "Ley 8508",
      "title_en": "Contentious-Administrative Code",
      "title_es": "Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "28/04/2006",
      "year": "2006"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-81360",
      "citation": "Ley 9342",
      "title_en": "Civil Procedure Code — Reversal of Burden of Proof in Environmental Matters",
      "title_es": "Código Procesal Civil",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "03/02/2016",
      "year": "2016"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-32655",
      "citation": "Ley 4179",
      "title_en": "Cooperative Associations Law",
      "title_es": "Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "22/08/1968",
      "year": "1968"
    }
  ],
  "cited_by": [
    {
      "id": "norm-32135",
      "citation": "Ley 7293",
      "title_en": "Law Regulating Current Exemptions",
      "title_es": "Ley Reguladora de Exoneraciones Vigentes",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "31/03/1992",
      "year": "1992"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-36052",
      "citation": "Ley 6756",
      "title_en": "Law on Cooperative Associations",
      "title_es": "Reforma Integral a Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "05/05/1982",
      "year": "1982"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-40197",
      "citation": "Ley 7794",
      "title_en": "Municipal Code",
      "title_es": "Código Municipal",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "30/04/1998",
      "year": "1998"
    }
  ],
  "references": {
    "internal": [
      {
        "target_id": "norm-36052",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Reforma Integral a Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-32135",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Ley Reguladora de Exoneraciones Vigentes, Derogatorias y Excepciones"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-40197",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Código Municipal"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-57436",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-81360",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Código Procesal Civil"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-32655",
        "kind": "concept_anchor",
        "label": "Ley 4179  Art. 6 inciso b"
      }
    ],
    "external": [
      {
        "ref_id": "norm-36204",
        "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=36204&strTipM=FN",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Interpretación auténtica de la Ley N° 6450 \"Ref. Código Fiscal, Renta, Fondo Educación Superior Acciones Portador\",  y adiciona la N° 5185 \"Reforma Integral a la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas y Creación del Instituto Nacional de Fomento Cooperativo\"",
        "norm_id": "36204"
      },
      {
        "ref_id": "norm-831",
        "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=831&strTipM=FN",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Impuestos Municipales de Santa Cruz",
        "norm_id": "831"
      }
    ]
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-308501",
  "tier": 2,
  "is_environmental": false,
  "_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": [
    {
      "art_num": "1",
      "art_scij": "162053",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-36204",
      "norm_fecha": "17 Sep 1981",
      "norm_name": "Interpretación auténtica de la Ley N° 6450 \"Ref. Código Fiscal, Renta, Fondo Educación Superior Acciones Portador\",  y adiciona la N° 5185 \"Reforma Integral a la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas y Creación del Instituto Nacional de Fomento Cooperativo\"",
      "norm_num": "6605",
      "norm_ver": "85955",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "2",
      "art_scij": "162054",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-36204",
      "norm_fecha": "17 Sep 1981",
      "norm_name": "Interpretación auténtica de la Ley N° 6450 \"Ref. Código Fiscal, Renta, Fondo Educación Superior Acciones Portador\",  y adiciona la N° 5185 \"Reforma Integral a la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas y Creación del Instituto Nacional de Fomento Cooperativo\"",
      "norm_num": "6605",
      "norm_ver": "85955",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "6",
      "art_scij": "201487",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-36052",
      "norm_detalle": "Inciso b",
      "norm_fecha": "05 May 1982",
      "norm_name": "Reforma Integral a Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas",
      "norm_num": "6756",
      "norm_ver": "85891",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "1",
      "art_scij": "4721",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-831",
      "norm_fecha": "24 Jul 1990",
      "norm_name": "Impuestos Municipales de Santa Cruz",
      "norm_num": "7182",
      "norm_ver": "885",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "50",
      "art_scij": "146283",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-32135",
      "norm_fecha": "31 Mar 1992",
      "norm_name": "Ley Reguladora de Exoneraciones Vigentes, Derogatorias y Excepciones",
      "norm_num": "7293",
      "norm_ver": "92927",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "79",
      "art_scij": "176654",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-40197",
      "norm_fecha": "30 Abr 1998",
      "norm_name": "Código Municipal",
      "norm_num": "7794",
      "norm_ver": "128752",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "88",
      "art_scij": "176665",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-40197",
      "norm_fecha": "30 Abr 1998",
      "norm_name": "Código Municipal",
      "norm_num": "7794",
      "norm_ver": "128752",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "220",
      "art_scij": "221",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-57436",
      "norm_fecha": "28 Abr 2006",
      "norm_name": "Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo",
      "norm_num": "8508",
      "norm_ver": "118784",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "41",
      "art_scij": "42",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-81360",
      "norm_detalle": "Inciso 1",
      "norm_fecha": "03 Feb 2016",
      "norm_name": "Código Procesal Civil",
      "norm_num": "9342",
      "norm_ver": "128053",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    }
  ],
  "cited_norms_inverted": [
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-32135",
      "norm_num": "7293",
      "norm_name": "Ley Reguladora de Exoneraciones Vigentes",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "31/03/1992"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-36052",
      "norm_num": "6756",
      "norm_name": "Reforma Integral a Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "05/05/1982"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-40197",
      "norm_num": "7794",
      "norm_name": "Código Municipal",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "30/04/1998"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Análisis de legalidad sobre el deber de la Caja de ANDE de gestionar y pagar el impuesto de patente municipal"
        }
      ],
      "id": 2,
      "nombre": "Patente municipal"
    },
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Análisis de legalidad sobre el deber de la Caja de ANDE de gestionar y pagar el impuesto de patente municipal"
        }
      ],
      "id": 1,
      "nombre": "Proceso contencioso administrativo"
    }
  ],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "\"VIII.- SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO SOMETIDO AL ANÁLISIS DEL TRIBUNAL. De lo argumentado por la parte actora y sus requerimientos, así como de las manifestaciones combativas esbozadas por la representación del ente municipal, este Tribunal colige que el punto medular a dilucidar en esta litis, es si Caja de ANDE está obligada a tramitar la licencia comercial y pagar a la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz la suma correspondiente al impuesto de patente, producto de la actividad comercial que ejerce en dicho cantón del país, o si por el contrario, se encuentra exenta de pago y por ende, debe el Gobierno Local proceder a otorgar una licencia comercial para el funcionamiento normal de la entidad sin cancelar el impuesto indicado. Aunque debe señalarse que el apoderado especial judicial de la entidad accionante confundió la resolución que debió haberse impugnado, pues su ataque lo fue contra un mero acto de comunicación -inimpugnable en principio-, como lo fue el oficio DAM-1725-2019 del 06 de junio del 2019, toda vez que la Alcaldesa Municipal lo que hizo fue remitirle al Gerente de Caja de ANDE la resolución de las 11:00 horas del 04 de junio del 2019, donde se le rechazó la impugnación que en su momento se había incoado, denegando su argumentación de que tal ente es uno sin fines de lucro y le reiteró la postura de la Administración Municipal de que a dicha entidad no le alcanzaba la exoneración del pago de patente comercial. No obstante, es lo cierto que en dicho oficio, se le indicó a la recurrente que quedaba así agotada la vía administrativa y ante ello, este Tribunal procederá de seguido a analizar la legalidad de lo actuado y resuelto por la Comuna de Santa Cruz, a efecto de esclarecer, a la luz de lo reseñado en el considerando precedente, si Caja de ANDE debe o no pagar la patente municipal para operar a derecho en el cantón guanacasteco mencionado. Partiendo de lo anterior y sustentados en lo dispuesto por el ordenamiento jurídico, incluyendo las resoluciones jurisprudenciales citadas previamente, esta Cámara concluye que, tal y como lo ha resuelto el Ayuntamiento, a la entidad gestionante y aquí demandante, no le asiste el derecho de ejercer sus actividades lucrativas sin tramitar y adquirir la licencia comercial que estatuye el artículo 88 del Código Municipal, por lo que debe proceder a gestionarla y realizar el respectivo pago del impuesto de patente. Lo anterior, tomando en consideración que el mandatario de la parte actora realiza un análisis e interpretación normativa que estima este Tribunal incorrecta, pues es su criterio y teoría del caso que ha defendido vehemente en este proceso, que su representada es de naturaleza similar a las cooperativas, que dicha entidad mercantil no realiza una actividad lucrativa y que por ello no se le puede exigir el pago del impuesto de patente comercial. En tal sentido, ciertamente reconoce esta Cámara, que según la interpretación auténtica realizada en el ordinal 2° de la Ley N° 6605 del 17 de setiembre de 1981, el legislador dispuso: “Interprétase, igualmente, que las asociaciones cooperativas y la Caja de Ahorro y Préstamos de la Asociación Nacional de Educadores son entes sin fines de lucro, las cuales no están obligadas al pago del Impuesto sobre la Renta (…)” [el subrayado es propio]. Sin embargo, nótese de entrada, que en la anterior disposición normativa, se estimó pertinente realizarle una modificación al artículo 1° de la Ley de Creación de Caja de Ande N° 12 del 13 de octubre de 1944, exonerándola en forma exclusiva del impuesto sobre la renta, más nunca del impuesto de patente municipal. Incluso, contrario al alegato de la parte actora y por lo que explicaremos a continuación, de una combinación armónica y analógica de las normas jurídicas que resultan aplicables al caso, expuestas en el apartado precedente y que aquí ahondaremos, consideramos que Caja de ANDE no está cobijada dentro de la exención que en su momento se había dispuesto en la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas N° 4179 del 22 de agosto de 1968, reformada por el artículo 1° de la Ley N° 6756 del 5 de mayo de 1982, cuyo artículo 6 inciso b) dispone: “Las asociaciones cooperativas disfrutarán de los siguientes privilegios: (...) b) Exención de todo impuesto o tasa, nacional o municipal, sobre los actos de formación, inscripción, modificación de estatutos y demás requisitos legales para su funcionamiento” [el subrayado es suplido]. Véase que, aunque ciertamente en el anterior precepto normativo sí se le exoneró a las asociaciones cooperativas de todo tipo de impuestos, incluidos lo de patentes municipales, hay que resaltar que con posterior a la promulgación de dicho cuerpo legal, fue creada la Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Santa Cruz, Ley N° 7182 del 24 de julio de 1990, cuyo cardinal 1° reguló lo siguiente: “Las personas físicas o jurídicas que se dediquen al ejercicio de actividades lucrativas en el cantón de Santa Cruz, estarán obligadas a pagar a la Municipalidad un impuesto de patentes que las faculte para ejercer esas actividades, de conformidad con los artículos 3, 4 y 15 de esta ley”. [énfasis agregado]\".\n\nAdaptando nuestro caso a lo señalado por la Sala Primera de Casación y conforme a la normativa jurídica que resulta aplicable conforme hasta lo ahora expuesto, diremos entonces, que la Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Santa Cruz, Ley N° 7182, mediante la cual se reguló el pago del impuesto de patentes de dicho cantón, tiene vigencia desde el 24 de julio de 1990, lo que implica claramente que es un tributo posterior a la exoneración genérica creada por el artículo 6 inciso b) de la Ley N° 4179 del 22 de agosto de 1968. En tal sentido, al amparo de la reforma dispuesta en el numeral 50 de la Ley N° 7293 al precepto 63 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, las exenciones tributarias no pueden ser extendidas a los impuestos que sean creados con posterioridad. El único motivo por el que se pudiera haber considerado que le asistía razón a la parte actora, era haber demostrado que no ejercía actividades lucrativas en el cantón de Santa Cruz. No obstante, como se desprende más bien de los hechos probados que dan soporte a esta sentencia y ha sido reconocido por la propia parte actora, incluso en las instancias administrativas en las distintas gestiones e impugnaciones presentadas en el Ayuntamiento, Caja de ANDE mantiene una sucursal en la zona santacruceña, por lo que es fácil deducir que como agrupación corporativa que realiza actividades lucrativas que le generan utilidades por los servicios prestados, lo cual es la génesis del hecho generador para el pago del tributo que pretende cobrar el ente local. Otro resultado tendría el proceso, si por ejemplo la parte actora se hubiese ocupado y preocupado -además de argumentar- de presentar pruebas ante el Tribunal, demostrando que lo único que tiene en el cantón de Santa Cruz es una oficina administrativa donde no brinda ningún tipo de servicio a sus asociados que produzcan utilidades. No obstante, ante la carencia de elementos justificantes y dado que el como reza el aforismo “onus probandi incumbit actori”, recogido incluso en nuestro ordenamiento en el numeral 41.1 del Código Procesal Civil, de aplicación supletoria por así permitirlo el artículo 220 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, no podría amparar esta Cámara la tesis de la demandante de que no ejerce actividades lucrativas y que todas las realizadas son sin fines de lucro, pues la carga de la prueba para ello era responsabilidad enteramente suya y mucho menos cuando como dijimos líneas arriba, la ley que reguló el impuesto de patente municipal de Santa Cruz, entró en vigencia muchos años después de la exoneración legal que se les había otorgado a las organizaciones cooperativas, lo que implica a modo de colofón, que Caja de ANDE sí realiza una actividad comercial lucrativa que le genera una ganancia, y por ende, conforme al otrora artículo 79, hoy día 88 del Código Municipal, la demandante deberá contar con la licencia municipal respectiva para ejercer su actividad comercial, la cual se obtendrá mediante el pago de un impuesto. Finalmente, valga señalar, que una vez realizado el análisis de legalidad respectivo, denota este Colegio de Jueces que la decisión emitida en sede administrativa resulta conforme a derecho y al mérito de los autos, pues la interpretación legal realizada por la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz es la correcta, amén de que la parte actora ni siquiera ha señalado puntual y atinadamente cuáles son los vicios de nulidad reclamados, limitándose a externar que el Ayuntamiento interpretó erróneamente que todo acto que se trate como intermediación financiera, debe de ser considerado como una actividad lucrativa, utilizando calificativos como “errado, antojadizo o arbitrario” y que se violentaron de forma grosera las reglas elementales de justicia, lógica y conveniencia, sin precisar cómo y de qué manera [...].\"",
  "body_en_text": "**VIII.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT’S ANALYSIS.** From the arguments of the plaintiff and its requests, as well as the opposing statements outlined by the representative of the municipal entity, this Court infers that the central point to be elucidated in this litigation is whether Caja de ANDE is obligated to process a business license (licencia comercial) and pay the Municipality of Santa Cruz the corresponding sum for the patent tax (impuesto de patente), as a result of the commercial activity it carries out in that canton of the country, or if, on the contrary, it is exempt from payment and, therefore, the Local Government must proceed to grant a business license for the entity’s normal operation without paying the indicated tax. Although it should be noted that the special judicial representative of the plaintiff entity confused the resolution that should have been challenged, since his attack was against a mere communication—unchallengeable in principle—, which was official letter DAM-1725-2019 of June 6, 2019, given that what the Municipal Mayor did was send the Manager of Caja de ANDE the resolution of 11:00 a.m. on June 4, 2019, where the challenge that had been filed at the time was rejected, denying its argument that such entity is a non-profit one and reiterating the Municipal Administration’s position that said entity was not covered by the exemption from payment of the business patent. Nevertheless, it is true that in said official letter, the appellant was informed that the administrative channel was thus exhausted, and in view of that, this Court will proceed immediately to analyze the legality of what was done and resolved by the Municipality of Santa Cruz, in order to clarify, in light of what was outlined in the preceding recital, whether Caja de ANDE must or must not pay the municipal patent to legally operate in the aforementioned Guanacaste canton. Based on the foregoing and supported by the provisions of the legal system, including the jurisprudential resolutions previously cited, this Chamber concludes that, just as the City Council has resolved, the petitioning entity and plaintiff here does not have the right to exercise its lucrative activities without processing and acquiring the business license established in Article 88 of the Código Municipal, and therefore it must proceed to manage it and make the respective payment of the patent tax. The foregoing, taking into consideration that the representative of the plaintiff carries out a normative analysis and interpretation that this Court deems incorrect, since it is his criterion and theory of the case, which he has vehemently defended in this process, that his client is of a similar nature to cooperatives, that said commercial entity does not carry out a lucrative activity, and that therefore it cannot be required to pay the business patent tax. In this regard, this Chamber certainly recognizes that, according to the authentic interpretation made in numeral 2 of Ley N° 6605 of September 17, 1981, the legislator provided: “It is likewise interpreted that cooperative associations (asociaciones cooperativas) and the Caja de Ahorro y Préstamos de la Asociación Nacional de Educadores are non-profit entities, which are not obliged to pay Income Tax (…)” [emphasis added]. However, note from the outset that in the preceding normative provision, it was deemed pertinent to make a modification to Article 1 of the Ley de Creación de Caja de Ande N° 12 of October 13, 1944, exclusively exempting it from income tax, but never from the municipal patent tax. In fact, contrary to the plaintiff's argument and for the reasons we will explain below, from a harmonious and analogical combination of the legal norms that are applicable to the case, set forth in the preceding section and which we will delve into here, we consider that Caja de ANDE is not covered by the exemption that at the time had been provided in the Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas N° 4179 of August 22, 1968, amended by Article 1 of Ley N° 6756 of May 5, 1982, whose Article 6, subsection b) provides: “Cooperative associations shall enjoy the following privileges: (...) b) Exemption from all national or municipal taxes or fees on the acts of formation, registration, modification of bylaws, and other legal requirements for their operation” [emphasis supplied]. Observe that, although it is true that in the previous normative precept cooperative associations were indeed exempted from all types of taxes, including municipal patents, it must be highlighted that after the enactment of said legal body, the Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Santa Cruz, Ley N° 7182 of July 24, 1990, was created, whose cardinal 1 regulated the following: “Natural or legal persons engaged in lucrative activities in the canton of Santa Cruz shall be obliged to pay the Municipality a patent tax (impuesto de patentes) that empowers them to exercise those activities, in accordance with Articles 3, 4, and 15 of this law.” [emphasis added]\".\n\nAdapting our case to what was indicated by the Sala Primera de Casación and in accordance with the applicable legal regulations as set forth so far, we will state then, that the Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Santa Cruz, Ley N° 7182, through which the payment of the patent tax for said canton was regulated, has been in force since July 24, 1990, which clearly implies that it is a tax subsequent to the generic exemption created by Article 6 subsection b) of Ley N° 4179 of August 22, 1968. In this regard, under the protection of the amendment provided in numeral 50 of Ley N° 7293 to precept 63 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, tax exemptions cannot be extended to taxes that are created subsequently. The only reason that the plaintiff could have been considered to have a valid claim was to have demonstrated that it did not exercise lucrative activities in the canton of Santa Cruz. However, as is inferred rather from the proven facts that support this judgment and has been recognized by the plaintiff itself, even in the administrative instances in the various procedures and challenges presented to the City Council, Caja de ANDE maintains a branch in the Santa Cruz area, so it is easy to deduce that as a corporate group it carries out lucrative activities that generate profits for the services provided, which is the genesis of the taxable event for the payment of the tax that the local entity seeks to collect. The process would have another result if, for example, the plaintiff had undertaken and concerned itself—in addition to arguing—with presenting evidence before the Court, demonstrating that the only thing it has in the canton of Santa Cruz is an administrative office where it does not provide any type of service to its members that produces profits. However, given the lack of justificatory elements and since, as the aphorism “onus probandi incumbit actori” states, even enshrined in our legal system in numeral 41.1 of the Código Procesal Civil, of supplementary application as permitted by Article 220 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, this Chamber could not uphold the plaintiff's thesis that it does not exercise lucrative activities and that all those carried out are non-profit, because the burden of proof for that was entirely its responsibility, and much less so when, as we stated above, the law that regulated the municipal patent tax of Santa Cruz came into force many years after the legal exemption that had been granted to cooperative organizations, which implies, by way of conclusion, that Caja de ANDE does carry out a lucrative commercial activity that generates a profit, and therefore, in accordance with the former Article 79, currently Article 88 of the Código Municipal, the plaintiff must have the respective municipal license to exercise its commercial activity, which will be obtained through the payment of a tax. Finally, it is worth noting that once the respective legality analysis was carried out, this Panel of Judges denotes that the decision issued in the administrative venue is in accordance with the law and the merits of the case file, because the legal interpretation made by the Municipality of Santa Cruz is correct, besides the fact that the plaintiff has not even punctually and accurately pointed out which are the alleged nullity defects, merely limiting itself to stating that the City Council erroneously interpreted that any act involving financial intermediation must be considered a lucrative activity, using qualifiers such as “wrong, whimsical, or arbitrary” and that the elementary rules of justice, logic, and convenience were grossly violated, without specifying how and in what way [...].\n\n**VIII.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE SUBMITTED TO THE TRIBUNAL'S ANALYSIS.** From the arguments and requests of the plaintiff, as well as the rebuttals outlined by the municipal entity's representation, this Tribunal infers that the core issue to be resolved in this litigation is whether Caja de ANDE is obligated to process the commercial license and pay the Municipality of Santa Cruz the sum corresponding to the patent tax (impuesto de patente), as a result of the commercial activity it carries out in that canton of the country, or if, on the contrary, it is exempt from payment and, therefore, the Local Government must proceed to grant a commercial license for the normal operation of the entity without paying the indicated tax. Although it should be noted that the special judicial representative of the plaintiff entity confused the resolution that should have been challenged, since his attack was against a mere communication act—unchallengeable in principle—namely official letter DAM-1725-2019 of June 6, 2019, given that what the Municipal Mayor did was forward to the Manager of Caja de ANDE the resolution of 11:00 a.m. on June 4, 2019, which rejected the challenge that had been filed at the time, denying its argument that such an entity is non-profit and reiterating the Municipal Administration's position that said entity was not covered by the exemption from payment of the commercial patent. Nevertheless, the fact is that in said official letter, the appellant was informed that the administrative channel was thereby exhausted, and in view of this, this Tribunal will proceed forthwith to analyze the legality of what was done and resolved by the Commune of Santa Cruz, in order to clarify, in light of what was outlined in the preceding recital, whether or not Caja de ANDE must pay the municipal patent to operate legally in the aforementioned Guanacaste canton. Based on the foregoing and supported by the provisions of the legal system, including the previously cited jurisprudential rulings, this Chamber concludes that, as resolved by the City Council, the requesting and here plaintiff entity does not have the right to exercise its lucrative activities without processing and acquiring the commercial license established in article 88 of the Código Municipal, and therefore it must proceed to manage it and make the respective payment of the patent tax. The foregoing, taking into consideration that the representative of the plaintiff performs a normative analysis and interpretation that this Tribunal deems incorrect, as his criterion and theory of the case, which he has vehemently defended in this process, is that his represented entity is of a nature similar to cooperatives, that said commercial entity does not carry out a lucrative activity, and that therefore the payment of the commercial patent tax cannot be required of it. In this regard, this Chamber certainly recognizes that according to the authentic interpretation made in ordinal 2 of Law No. 6605 of September 17, 1981, the legislator provided: *\"It is also interpreted that cooperative associations and the Caja de Ahorro y Préstamos de la Asociación Nacional de Educadores are non-profit entities, which are not obligated to pay the Income Tax (…)\"* [emphasis added]. However, note from the outset that in the previous normative provision, it was deemed pertinent to make a modification to article 1 of the Creation Law of Caja de ANDE, Law No. 12 of October 13, 1944, exempting it exclusively from income tax, but never from the municipal patent tax. Even, contrary to the plaintiff's claim and for what we will explain below, from a harmonious and analogical combination of the legal norms applicable to the case, set forth in the preceding section and which we will delve into here, we consider that Caja de ANDE is not covered within the exemption that at the time had been provided in the Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas, Law No. 4179 of August 22, 1968, reformed by article 1 of Law No. 6756 of May 5, 1982, whose article 6, subsection b) provides: *\"Cooperative associations shall enjoy the following privileges: (...) b) Exemption from all national or municipal taxes or fees on acts of formation, registration, modification of statutes, and other legal requirements for their operation\"* [emphasis added]. Observe that, although it is true that in the prior normative precept, cooperative associations were exempted from all types of taxes, including municipal patents, it must be highlighted that subsequent to the enactment of said legal body, the Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Santa Cruz, Law No. 7182 of July 24, 1990, was created, whose cardinal 1 regulated the following: *\"Natural or legal persons engaged in the exercise of lucrative activities in the canton of Santa Cruz shall be obligated to pay the Municipality a patent tax that empowers them to exercise those activities, in accordance with articles 3, 4, and 15 of this law\"*. [emphasis added].\n\nAdapting our case to what was indicated by the First Cassation Chamber and in accordance with the legal norms applicable as per what has been so far presented, we will say then that the Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Santa Cruz, Law No. 7182, through which the payment of the patent tax of said canton was regulated, has been in force since July 24, 1990, which clearly implies that it is a tax subsequent to the generic exemption created by article 6, subsection b) of Law No. 4179 of August 22, 1968. In this sense, under the protection of the reform provided in numeral 50 of Law No. 7293 to precept 63 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, tax exemptions cannot be extended to taxes that are created subsequently. The only reason the plaintiff could have been considered to be right was to have demonstrated that it did not exercise lucrative activities in the canton of Santa Cruz. However, as is rather inferred from the proven facts supporting this judgment and has been recognized by the plaintiff itself, even in the administrative instances in the various procedures and challenges filed with the City Council, Caja de ANDE maintains a branch in the Santa Cruz area, so it is easy to deduce that, as a corporate group that carries out lucrative activities that generate profits for the services provided, which is the genesis of the taxable event for the payment of the tax that the local entity intends to collect. The process would have another outcome if, for example, the plaintiff had occupied and concerned itself—in addition to arguing—with presenting evidence before the Tribunal, demonstrating that what it has in the canton of Santa Cruz is solely an administrative office where it provides no type of service to its associates that produces profits. However, given the lack of justifying elements, and since, as the aphorism states *\"onus probandi incumbit actori\"*, even embodied in our legal system in numeral 41.1 of the Código Procesal Civil, of supplementary application as permitted by article 220 of the Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo, this Chamber could not uphold the plaintiff's thesis that it does not exercise lucrative activities and that all those carried out are non-profit, because the burden of proof for this was entirely its responsibility, and much less so when, as we stated above, the law that regulated the municipal patent tax of Santa Cruz came into force many years after the legal exemption that had been granted to cooperative organizations, which implies, as a conclusion, that Caja de ANDE does carry out a lucrative commercial activity that generates income, and therefore, in accordance with former article 79, today article 88 of the Código Municipal, the plaintiff must have the respective municipal license to exercise its commercial activity, which shall be obtained through the payment of a tax. Finally, it is worth noting that, once the respective legality analysis has been conducted, this College of Judges observes that the decision issued in the administrative venue is in accordance with the law and the merits of the case record, as the legal interpretation made by the Municipality of Santa Cruz is correct, aside from the fact that the plaintiff has not even punctually and accurately indicated what the claimed nullity defects are, limiting itself to expressing that the City Council erroneously interpreted that every act involving financial intermediation must be considered a lucrative activity, using qualifiers such as \"erroneous, capricious, or arbitrary\" and that the elementary rules of justice, logic, and convenience were grossly violated, without specifying how and in what way [...]."
}