{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-1136189", "citation": "Res. 00087-2022 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VII", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Cooperativa de ahorro y crédito sujeta al impuesto de patentes en Pérez Zeledón", "title_en": "Savings and Loan Cooperative Subject to Business License Tax in Pérez Zeledón", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección VII, resolvió la demanda de COOPENAE R.L. contra la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, en la que la cooperativa solicitaba la nulidad de las resoluciones que rechazaron su exención del impuesto de patentes y la devolución de lo pagado. La actora argumentó que, al ser una cooperativa sin fines de lucro y realizar intermediación financiera como parte de su objeto social, no realizaba el hecho generador del tributo (actividad lucrativa) y estaba exonerada. El Tribunal, por mayoría, declaró sin lugar la demanda. Consideró que la Ley 8821 de Pérez Zeledón grava las actividades productivas, no solo las lucrativas, por lo que la ausencia de lucro es irrelevante. Además, sostuvo que la exención genérica de impuestos para cooperativas del artículo 6 de la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas no se aplica a tributos creados con posterioridad, como el impuesto de patentes de la Ley 8821, de conformidad con el artículo 63 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios.", "summary_en": "The Administrative Court, Section VII, denied the claim of COOPENAE R.L. against the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón. The cooperative sought the annulment of administrative decisions that denied its exemption from the business license tax and a refund of payments made. COOPENAE argued that as a non-profit cooperative engaged in financial intermediation as part of its social purpose, it did not engage in a for-profit activity—the taxable event—and was thus exempt. The Court, by a majority, rejected the claim. It held that Law 8821 of Pérez Zeledón taxes productive activities, not only for-profit ones, so the cooperative's non-profit status was irrelevant. Additionally, it ruled that the generic tax exemption for cooperatives under Article 6 of the Cooperatives Law does not extend to taxes created after the exemption, such as the business license tax under Law 8821, pursuant to Article 63 of the Tax Code.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VII", "date": "23/08/2022", "year": "2022", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "impuesto de patentes", "hecho generador", "actividad productiva", "exención tributaria", "sujeto pasivo", "principio de realidad económica", "Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "impuesto de patentes", "cooperativa", "exención tributaria", "Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón", "actividad productiva", "actividad lucrativa", "Ley 8821", "Código Municipal art. 88", "principio de realidad económica", "COOPENAE" ], "keywords_en": [ "business license tax", "cooperative", "tax exemption", "Municipality of Pérez Zeledón", "productive activity", "for-profit activity", "Law 8821", "Municipal Code art. 88", "economic reality principle", "COOPENAE" ], "excerpt_es": "QUINTO. LAS EXONERACIONES CONTENIDAS EN LA LEY DE ASOCIACIONES COOPERATIVAS NO AFECTAN EL IMPUESTO CREADO POR LA LEY 8821: [...] Lo anterior resulta relevante en el tanto que el artículo 50 de la Ley Reguladora de Exoneraciones Vigentes, Derogatorias y Excepciones, Ley N° 7293 del 31 de marzo de 1992, establece de manera diáfana: \"Modifícase el artículo 63 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios para que diga: “Artículo 63-Límite de aplicación: Aunque haya disposición expresa de la ley tributaria, la exención no se extiende a los tributos establecidos posteriormente a su creación”.\" Así, de la simple lectura, revisión y confrontación de las fechas de creación y vigencia de las leyes que nos ocupa, tanto la que contenía la exoneración de todo tipo de impuestos para las asociaciones cooperativas, Ley N° 6756 del 5 de mayo de 1982, que reformó la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas N° 4179 del 22 de agosto de 1968, como la Ley de Regulación de Licencias y Patentes de Pérez Zeledón, Ley N° 8821 del 3 de mayo de 2010, se deduce con meridiana claridad que las exoneraciones fijadas en la primera no afectan a la ley posterior.\n\nSEXTO. EL HECHO GENERADOR DEL TRIBUTO CREADO EN LA LEY 8821 NO CONTEMPLA EL EJERCICIO DE ACTIVIDAD LUCRATIVA. [...] En el análisis del caso concreto encontramos que el tributo cuya no sujeción alega la actora, fue creado mediante Ley número 8821 del tres de mayo de 2010 denominada “Regulación de Licencias y Patentes de Pérez Zeledón”, que en lo que resulta atinente a sus elementos dispuso: [...] ARTÍCULO 43.- Hecho generador. Las personas físicas o jurídicas que se dediquen al ejercicio de actividades productivas de cualquier tipo que estas sean, en el cantón de Pérez Zeledón, deberán obtener la licencia respectiva y pagarán, a la Municipalidad, el impuesto de patentes que las faculte para desarrollar estas actividades. [...] ARTÍCULO 45.- Contribuyentes. [...] b) De conformidad con la naturaleza de la actividad que desarrollen: son todos los que realizan actividades productivas, sin importar si estas son o no consideradas o declaradas por ellos mismos como eminentemente lucrativas. [...] Resulta entonces, absolutamente diáfano que toda la tesis de la actora respecto de que no tiene finalidad de lucro y que su actividad no es lucrativa, resulta irrelevante para el caso concreto.", "excerpt_en": "FIFTH. THE EXEMPTIONS IN THE COOPERATIVES LAW DO NOT AFFECT THE TAX CREATED BY LAW 8821: [...] This is relevant given that Article 50 of the Law Regulating Existing Exemptions, Repeals and Exceptions, Law No. 7293 of March 31, 1992, clearly states: \"Article 63 of the Tax Code is amended to read: 'Article 63—Limitation on Application: Even if there is an express provision in the tax law, the exemption does not extend to taxes established after its creation.'\" Thus, a simple reading, review, and comparison of the dates of creation and effectiveness of the laws at issue—both the one containing the exemption from all taxes for cooperatives (Law No. 6756 of May 5, 1982, which reformed the Cooperatives Law No. 4179 of August 22, 1968) and the Law Regulating Licenses and Patents of Pérez Zeledón (Law No. 8821 of May 3, 2010)—makes it abundantly clear that the exemptions set out in the former do not affect the subsequent law.\n\nSIXTH. THE TAXABLE EVENT CREATED IN LAW 8821 DOES NOT REQUIRE THE EXERCISE OF A FOR-PROFIT ACTIVITY. [...] In the analysis of the present case, we find that the tax from which the plaintiff claims exemption was created by Law No. 8821 of May 3, 2010, entitled \"Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Pérez Zeledón,\" which, with respect to its elements, provides: [...] ARTICLE 43.- Taxable event. Natural or legal persons engaged in any type of productive activity in the canton of Pérez Zeledón must obtain the respective license and pay the municipality the business license tax that enables them to carry out such activities. [...] ARTICLE 45.- Taxpayers. [...] b) By the nature of the activity they undertake: all those who engage in productive activities, regardless of whether or not they themselves consider or declare them to be eminently for profit. [...] It is thus perfectly clear that the plaintiff's entire argument about not having a for-profit purpose and that its activity is not for profit is irrelevant in this particular case.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The claim by COOPENAE R.L. is dismissed, confirming its liability for the municipal business license tax in Pérez Zeledón.", "summary_es": "Se declara sin lugar la demanda de COOPENAE R.L., confirmando la sujeción al impuesto de patentes municipal en Pérez Zeledón." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando VI", "quote_en": "It is therefore perfectly clear that the plaintiff’s entire argument that it has no for-profit purpose and that its activity is not for profit is irrelevant in this particular case.", "quote_es": "Resulta entonces, absolutamente diáfano que toda la tesis de la actora respecto de que no tiene finalidad de lucro y que su actividad no es lucrativa, resulta irrelevante para el caso concreto." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "tax exemptions cannot be extended to taxes created subsequently.", "quote_es": "las exenciones tributarias no pueden ser extendidas a los impuestos que sean creados con posterioridad." } ], "cites": [ { "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-32655", "citation": "Ley 4179", "title_en": "Cooperative Associations Law", "title_es": "Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas", "doc_type": "law", "date": "22/08/1968", "year": "1968" }, { "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-5561", "citation": "Ley 4574", "title_en": "Municipal Code", "title_es": "Código Municipal", "doc_type": "law", "date": "04/05/1970", "year": "1970" }, { "id": "norm-6530", "citation": "Ley 4755", "title_en": "Tax Code of Norms and Procedures", "title_es": "Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios", "doc_type": "law", "date": "03/05/1971", "year": "1971" } ], "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-32655", "citation": "Ley 4179", "title_en": "Cooperative Associations Law", "title_es": "Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas", "doc_type": "law", "date": "22/08/1968", "year": "1968" }, { "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-5561", "citation": "Ley 4574", "title_en": "Municipal Code", "title_es": "Código Municipal", "doc_type": "law", "date": "04/05/1970", "year": "1970" }, { "id": "norm-6530", "citation": "Ley 4755", "title_en": "Tax Code of Norms and Procedures", "title_es": "Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios", "doc_type": "law", "date": "03/05/1971", "year": "1971" } ], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-32135", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 7293 Art. 50" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-1136189", "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": [], "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-32655", "norm_num": "4179", "norm_name": "Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "22/08/1968" }, { "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-5561", "norm_num": "4574", "norm_name": "Código Municipal", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "04/05/1970" }, { "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": "EV Generación de Machote: F:\\Gestion-Judicial\\Servidor de Archivos\\Modelos\\Contencioso\\TCRESOL015.dpj \n\n \n\n????????????????\n\n \n\nEXPEDIENTE:\n\n15-002285-1027-CA - 2\n\nPROCESO:\n\nCONOCIMIENTO\n\nACTOR/A:\n\nCOOPERATIVA NACIONAL DE EDUCADORES R L. (COOPENAE)\n\nDEMANDADO/A:\n\nMUNICIPALIDAD DE PEREZ ZELEDON\n\n \n\nN° 087-2022-VII\n\nTRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA, SECCIÓN SÉTIMA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL, SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA, a las ocho horas treinta minutos del veintitrés de agosto de dos mil veintidós.\n\nProceso de conocimiento contencioso administrativo formulado por COOPERATIVA NACIONAL DE EDUCADORES R.L., en adelante Nombre46090 Nombre2807., cédula jurídica No. CED121826 representada en este proceso por Nombre103829 , mayor, vecino de San José, portador de la cédula No. CED121827, en su condición de Apoderado Generalísimo sin límite de suma; en contra de la MUNICIPALIDAD DE PÉREZ ZELEDÓN, representada por su Alcaldesa, Nombre26960 , mayor, educadora, vecina de Pérez Zeledón, cédula de identidad número CED121828. Intervienen en condición de Apoderados Especiales Judiciales de la actora, los profesionales en derecho, Nombre21480 , cédula de identidad número CED121829 y Nombre153995 , cédula CED121830; y como Apoderados Especiales Judiciales de la demandada, los licenciados Jimmy Arias Dávila, cédula de identidad CED121831 y Marcos Fallas Chinchilla, cédula CED121832.\n\nCONSIDERANDO:\n\nPRIMERO. ASPECTOS PRELIMINARES:\n\n1.- Por memorial presentado el once de marzo de dos mil quince, la representación de Nombre46090 . interpuso demanda de conocimiento contencioso administrativa en contra de la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, para que en sentencia se disponga: “1. La nulidad absoluta de las resoluciones N°566-2014 de las 09:45 horas del 20 de noviembre del año 2014 de la Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, en su condición de jerarca impropio bifásico de la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, la cual confirma lo actuado por la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, mediante acuerdo tomado por el Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón en Sesión Extraordinaria N° 066-13, Artículo 2), Inciso 16) del 11 de julio de 2013. 2. Se proceda a la devolución efectiva de los dineros pagados bajo protesta por esta representación en el tanto la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón ha seguido con sus procedimiento (sic) cobratorios en relación al impuesto de patentes municipales. De igual forma solicito se indexe el monto a devolver más los respectivos intereses acumulados desde la fecha de pago hasta su efectiva devolución. 3. Se solicita al Tribunal que se pronuncie en cuanto a la condición de sujeto exento del pago de patente municipal que le corresponde a la actora en su condición de cooperativas con el fin de evitar futuras acciones cobratorias por parte de la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón. 4. Que en caso de oposición se condene en costas a la parte demandada. (Folios 67 a 83 del expediente judicial).\n\n2.- La Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón contestó en forma negativa la demanda, interpuso la excepción de falta de derecho, y solicitó que fuera declara sin lugar con condena en costas contra la actora. (Folios 90 a 133 del expediente judicial).\n\n3.- El veintitrés de junio de 2016 se celebró la Audiencia Preliminar con la asistencia de representación de ambas partes. Allí, se ratificaron las pretensiones deducidas en el libelo de demanda, se fijaron como controvertidos los hechos 5, 6 y 10, se admitió la prueba documental ofrecida, se declaró el proceso como de puro derecho, y ambas partes rindieron conclusiones en forma oral. (Imágenes 189 a 191 del expediente digital).\n\n4.- En los procedimientos se han observado las prescripciones de rigor y no se perciben vicios u omisiones susceptibles de generar nulidad o indefensión a las partes. Se dicta esta sentencia por unanimidad, previas las deliberaciones de rigor y con la redacción del Juez Irías Obando.\n\nSEGUNDO. TEORÍA DEL CASO. SÍNTESIS DE LAS POSICIONES DE LAS PARTES: Nombre46090 . expone que es una asociación cooperativista de ahorro y crédito, constituida bajo el marco regulatorio de la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas Ley No. 4179 de 22 de agosto de 1968, todas sus reformas y en particular la Reforma Integral a la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas y Creación del Instituto Nacional de Fomento Cooperativo Ley N° 5185; que en razón de su naturaleza se encuentra inscrita ante el Departamento de Organizaciones Sociales del Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, mediante resolución número C-0148 del 18 de noviembre del año 1966; y que se encuentra autorizada para el ejercicio de la actividad de intermediación financiera de conformidad con los estatutos autorizados por el Ministerio de Trabajo, supervisados bajo el marco regulatorio del Instituto Nacional de Fomento Cooperativo, el cual supervisa el funcionamiento y persecución de los fines sociales y de la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras; además de encontrarse inscrita ante la SUGEF y sometida a un régimen de especial sujeción el cual limita la actividad al cumplimiento de sus objetivos económicos, sociales que garanticen a sus asociados la más eficiente y segura administración de sus recursos, según lo prescrito por la Ley N° 7391, Regulación de Intermediación Financiera de Organizaciones Cooperativas. Aduce que Nombre46090 como asociación cooperativa a nivel nacional desarrolla su actividad en diversos cantones, en los cuales goza de los derechos contenidos dentro de la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas, por la realización de su actividad de intermediación financiera con el fin de buscar el beneficio social de sus asociados, conforme a los contenidos de su acta constitutiva, resultando que para la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón la intermediación financiera per sé es lucrativa, y solo por esa razón debe pagar el Impuesto de Patente, así como que los excedentes que se generan son dividendos. Refiere que mediante memorial presentado el 26 de marzo del 2012, procedió a solicitar la exoneración del Impuesto sobre Patentes Municipales a la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón; que mediante acuerdo tomado por el Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón en Sesión Extraordinaria N° 039-12, Artículo 2), Inciso 20) del 14 de junio de 2012, se rechazó la petición realizada al considerar que Nombre46090 no se encuentra dentro de la lista contenida en la Ley que regula el Impuesto de Patentes de ese cantón, de entidades exentas del pago de impuesto de patentes. Agrega que presentó ante la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, recurso de revocatoria con apelación el día 09 de julio de 2012, al considerar que por su naturaleza, carece de fines de lucro, por lo que no está obligada a pagar la licencia comercial; y que mediante acuerdo tomado por el Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón en Sesión Extraordinaria N° 066-13, Artículo 2), Inciso 16) del 11 de julio de 2013, se procede a rechazar la revocatoria presentada al concluir que echa de menos la fase recursiva conforme lo establecido en el artículo 156 del Código Municipal, procediendo a admitir la apelación que se presentó en subsidio para ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, el cual, mediante resolución número 566-2014 de las 09:45 horas del veinte de noviembre de 2014 confirmó el acuerdo impugnado y dio por agotada la vía administrativa. Realiza un análisis sobre la normativa aplicable a las Cooperativas de Ahorro y Préstamo que las exime del pago de patente municipal, de los estatutos y acta constitutiva aprobados por el Ministerio de Trabajo, INFOCOOP y SUGEF que garantizan la naturaleza cooperativa de Nombre46090 y la supervisión que les realiza la SUGEF, como requisito para llevar a cabo su actividad, así como de la jurisprudencia, la cual señala ha sostenido que mientras que la cooperativa realice los fines para los que fue constituida; está exenta del pago del impuesto de patente municipal. En cuanto a la normativa indicó que el hecho generador que prevé el artículo 79) del Código Municipal y la Ley de Impuesto sobre Patentes de la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, extrayendo de la cita de sus numerales 43 y 2 que la Ley de cita en ningún momento realiza la equiparación de consumidor con agremiado de una Cooperativa, (haciendo el entendido de que no implica que dicha definición abarque el término) así como que la definición de actividad lucrativa no incluye los excedentes generados por las asociaciones cooperativas. Colige que conforme a la normativa que analizará se determinará que Nombre46090 no tiene la condición de sujeto pasivo de la obligación tributaria a pagar impuesto de patente. Que el artículo 64) de la Constitución Política establece la obligación del Estado a fomentar la creación de Cooperativas como un medio para mejorar las condiciones de vida de sus asociados. Que la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas estimula y regula la actividad cooperativa y el artículo segundo señala que son asociaciones voluntarias de personas y no de capitales, en la que los individuos se organizan democráticamente a fin de satisfacer sus necesidades y promover su mejoramiento económico y social y el motivo del trabajo y de la producción, de la distribución y del consumo es el servicio y no el lucro. Que se colige de ambas normativas que las cooperativas se encuentran orientadas únicamente al mejoramiento económico y social de sus asociados sin fines de lucro. Es la disposición constitucional el que se extiende en la ley y por ello es que la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas señala que son de conveniencia, utilidad pública e interés social como medio para el desarrollo económico, social, cultural y el artículo 4 le prohíbe a las cooperativas realizar actividades que no vayan orientadas a los fines indicados. Por su parte la citada ley en su artículo 21 refiriéndose a las cooperativas de ahorro y préstamo, -como es COOPENAE-, indica que su fin primordial es fomentar el ahorro y uso discreto del crédito personal solidario. Que igualmente la \"Ley Reguladora de la actividad de intermediación financiera de las organizaciones cooperativas\" No. 7391, señala que estas cooperativas serán reguladas por la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras, y de acuerdo al artículo 6), el hecho de que tengan bajo su disposición el manejo de recursos financieros, no se podría considerar que tienen fines de lucro. Por su parte el artículo 78) indica que las Cooperativas no tienen utilidades, sino ahorros o excedentes y estos pertenecen a sus miembros, sea que cuando salen de la asociación se reparte entre sus asociados y así se cumple con el fin social que es la satisfacción del bienestar económico y social de sus miembros y el hecho de que éstos, sus miembros obtengan un beneficio económico, no desnaturaliza la condición de cooperativa. El artículo 6.b) del mismo cuerpo normativo las exonera del pago de todo impuesto o tasa, nacional o municipal, de esta forma el Legislador generó un privilegio a esos entes de carácter social, y no le corresponde a la Municipalidad decidir a cuáles Cooperativas les corresponde pagar el impuesto de patente y a cuáles no. Así, hay que entender que la Ley de Patentes de Nombre265 graba el ejercicio de una actividad lucrativa y no incluye la actividad de una cooperativa de ahorro y crédito, ello por cuanto la actividad de la cooperativa por ley especial no es lucrativa, la cual priva sobre la ley general que es la Ley de Patentes Municipales de Nombre265 . En cuanto a los estatutos y acta constitutiva de COOPENAE, aprobados por el Ministerio de Trabajo, el INFOCOOP y la SUGEF, señaló que el artículo 13.e) se indica que son objetivos de la cooperativa el conceder diferentes tipos de servicios de ahorro y crédito a los asociados y asociadas mediante la eficiencia de su operación, pero sin fines de lucro, ya que de hacerlo se pondría al margen de la ley. Que para el cumplimiento de estos fines, el artículo 14 de sus estatutos le autoriza a captar recursos de sus asociados y asociadas, concederles crédito, realizar transacciones con títulos valores, establecer fondos de inversión, etc.; actividad que la ley califica de no lucrativa y de acuerdo al dictamen C-199-96 de la Procuraduría General de la República, Nombre46090 por la actividad que desarrolla, se encuentra en una relación de sujeción especial y que cuando captan dinero de sus propios asociados, con el propósito de colocarlos en el mercado financiero como créditos o inversión, lo es con el fin de fomentar en sus asociados el hábito de ahorro y del crédito personal, sin que ello desnaturalice su condición de entidades sin fines de lucro y que se encuentran supervisadas por INFOCOOP o SUGEF en lo que le corresponda a cada una, eso sí sin que se salga de la intermediación financiera, ya que de hacerlo sería sancionada. Aunado al citado criterio, señala la representación de Nombre46090 que el artículo 6 de la Ley No. 7391 indica que las Cooperativas de Ahorro y Crédito no pierden su condición de promotoras e impulsoras del desarrollo social de sus afiliados, por el sólo hecho de dedicarse a la intermediación financiera. Con base en lo indicado, concluye la actora que la Municipalidad y la Sección Tercera mal interpretan su situación al considerar que por el hecho de que realicen intermediación financiera, por ese simple hecho lucran y por ende no deben gozar de la exoneración que les brinda la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas, a todas, sin distinción alguna. Sin embargo la Ley No. 7391 indica que la actividad de intermediación financiera realizada por este tipo de cooperativas (de Ahorro y Crédito), no tienen como fin el lucro y su artículo 2) expresamente que los actos de intermediación financiera son actos cooperativos y sometidos al derecho cooperativo y supletoriamente por el derecho mercantil, en cuanto sea compatible con su especial naturaleza y la actividad de intermediación financiera de acuerdo al artículo 3 de esa Ley, es definida como la captación de dinero de sus propios asociados, con el propósito de destinarlos al otorgamiento de créditos o de inversión en el mercado financiero, de forma que el hecho de que Nombre46090 se dedique a la intermediación financiera, no por ello se desnaturaliza su condición de Cooperativa sin fines de lucro y en las resoluciones que se impugnan no se acreditan situaciones distintas a las previstas en la norma que autoriza a la Cooperativas de Ahorro y Préstamo a realizar actividad financiera sin fines de lucro, al punto de justificar un lucro que es en definitiva el hecho generador del impuesto de patente. En cuanto a la jurisprudencia nacional, indica la representación de Nombre46090 que la línea jurisprudencial ha sido que, la cooperativas no son objeto del pago de patente siempre y cuando la actividad que realizan se enmarque dentro de su objeto, según sea su naturaleza, para lo cual debe observarse lo que dispongan sus estatutos, de manera que si la actividad va más allá de los objetivos generales de la organización, será entonces una actividad de lucro y en ese caso si necesita de una patente para llevar a cabo la actividad en el cantón. Que en la sentencia No. 268-2003 de las 15:45 horas, el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, se refiere a la no sujeción de la cooperativas al pago del citado impuesto y por su parte la Sala I en el voto 26-97 de las 14:15 horas 16 de abril de 1997, señaló que el concepto de lucro se antepone al de cooperativismo y por tanto no pueden coexistir de manera conjunta, de manera que es imposible que una cooperativa desarrolle una actividad lucrativa. Explica que lo que han dicho los Tribunales es que una Cooperativa está obligada a pagar el impuesto de patente cuando transgrede su acta constitutiva e implementa prácticas ajenas a los fines para los que fue creada, y en este mismo sentido la Procuraduría General de la República en los dictámenes No. C-205-99 y No. 237-2007, en el que se indica que las cooperativas no gozarán del privilegio solamente cuando se salgan de su ámbito de creación y en ese porcentaje no cubierto por la ley de asociaciones cooperativistas es que deberá declarar la porción alícuota correspondiente y entonces le corresponderá a cada municipalidad con fundamento en los registros contables determinar si están desarrollando actividades comerciales con terceros no asociados y con ánimo de lucro, sin embargo que en el caso de COOPENAE, la Municipalidad de Nombre265 parte del supuesto de que la \"intermediación financiera\" es en sí misma lucrativa pero sin acreditar que efectivamente la cooperativa lucrara con la intermediación, único supuesto en que resultaría la cooperativa sujeto pasivo de la obligación tributaria. La Municipalidad de Nombre265 se opone a la demanda aduciendo falta de derecho. Sostiene que Nombre46090 . se encuentra afecta al correspondiente tributo de patente municipal, dado que del artículo 170 constitucional se deriva la autonomía de segundo grado de los gobiernos locales, principio del cual se desprende el poder impositivo o tributario de las municipalidades para sufragar el costo de los servicios públicos por medio de los ingresos recaudados. Expone que en ese sentido a través de la Ley Nº8821, Ley de Licencias y Patentes de la Municipalidad de Nombre265 , se desprende, que se ha cumplido con los procedimientos legales necesarios para que efectivamente se manifieste en tributos que se sujeten a los principios constitucionales propios de esa materia; de modo tal que la Asamblea Legislativa únicamente emite en una \"autorización típicamente tutelar\", cuando ejercita la facultad que le confiere el Inciso 13) del artículo 121 de la Constitución Política, en tanto le corresponde a los gobiernos locales el ejercicio para la creación, modificación o extinción de los impuestos municipales, así como la potestad de eximir de los tributos. Cita el artículo 4 del Código Municipal, a partir del cual colige que cada gobierno local es libre para definir los límites de su propio poder impositivo, por lo que los sistemas de imposición tributaria municipal para su cobro y aplicación concretos son de los más variados. Elabora planteamiento respecto de la potestad de la Municipalidad en su condición de Administración Tributaria. Al respecto manifiesta que el artículo 99 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios define el concepto de Administración Tributaria, señalando que es la unidad pública que administra y fiscaliza el tributo, lo que claramente concuerda con el artículo 4 del Código Municipal. Considera que es claro que las Municipalidades son Administración Tributaria, condición, le hace merecedor de todas las competencias y atributos establecidos de manera general en la ley para tales efectos, comprendida en primer lugar en el Código Municipal y posterior a este cuerpo general, la respectiva ley de patente municipal y las disposiciones contenidas en el Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, de acuerdo a lo preceptuado en el artículo 9.1 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Pide tener en consideración que en la determinación de las potestades de imperio, la materia está reservada a la ley (artículo 59 de la Ley General de la Administración ·Pública), y tratándose de los gobiernos locales, los mismos tienen soporte constitucional -artículos 169 y 170 de la Constitución Política-, siendo parte esencial de la autonomía de gobierno, la referida a la materia tributaria. Dentro de esas potestades intrínsecas a las Municipalidades, prosigue, existen políticas estatales y municipales, por medio de las cuales se crean excepciones a la aplicación de los tributos, tales como las exoneraciones fiscales o el otorgamiento de subvenciones de diversa índole, el acceso a créditos oficiales con tasas de interés reducidas y plazos dilatorios de amortización, las franquicias aduaneras, entre otros. Afirma que en el caso que nos ocupa, las exoneraciones, lo que buscan es impedir el nacimiento de la obligación tributaria, conocida como \"exención total\" o en otros casos reducir la cuantía del tributo, llamada también \"exención parcial\", a través de bonificaciones o deducciones ante ciertos supuestos de hecho incluidos en el ámbito del hecho imponible cuya realización no da lugar al surgimiento de la obligación tributaria de pago, constituyendo una excepción a los efectos normales. La norma de exención del tributo tiene la fuerza de enervar los efectos de la que lo crea, pues afecta, o al elemento subjetivo u objetivo del hecho imponible, o los elementos de cuantificación del tributo, o sea, en la base imponible o en el tipo de gravamen. La teoría clásica de la exención define las exoneraciones como una dispensa legal de la obligación tributaria, sea como una derogación de la obligación de pago, no obstante producirse el hecho imponible, que es el efecto que producen, sea la excepción de la obligación de contribuir con los gastos públicos determinados sujetos (exoneración subjetiva), o a determinadas situaciones o hechos (exoneración objetiva). Así, la exención tributaria tiene lugar cuando una norma contempla que en aquellos supuestos expresamente previstos por ella, no obstante producirse el hecho imponible, no se desarrolla su efecto principal: el deber de pagar el tributo u obligación tributaria. A partir de esa exposición concluye que por su naturaleza, la Ley ordinaria es la fuente creadora del tributo y de su régimen de exoneraciones, cuyo marco conceptual está definido en el Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, artículo 62, que al respecto dispone que es mediante la Ley, que se han de determinar las especificaciones y alcances de cada exoneración. Abona que en materia impositiva local, el artículo 79 del Código Municipal crea un impuesto sobre el ejercicio de cualquier actividad lucrativa (hecho generador), y considera que de su texto se desprende con claridad quién es el sujeto pasivo de la obligación tributaria y cuál es el hecho generador, de modo que está obligado a obtener la licencia y pagar su respectivo importe, todo interesado en ejercer actividades lucrativas. Esa licencia consiste en el permiso o habilitación previa por parte de los gobiernos locales para el ejercicio de la actividad económica. Explica que, propiamente en el cantón de Pérez Zeledón, la Ley No. 8821, Ley de Regulación de Licencias y Patentes de Pérez Zeledón, desarrolla todo lo referido al impuesto de patentes de las actividades comerciales que se explotan dentro de la circunscripción territorial de este cantón, gravando en el numeral 45, incisos b) y d), en relación con el 2 inciso 1), todas las actividades lucrativas relacionadas con banca y crédito, al indicar: ''Artículo 45. Son contribuyentes del impuesto de patentes de la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón las siguientes personas: (…) b) De conformidad con la naturaleza de la actividad que desarrollen: son todos los que realizan actividades productivas sin importar si estas son o no consideradas o declaradas por ellos mismos como eminentemente lucrativas. (…) d) De conformidad con el sector al que pertenecen: son tanto los que participan en el sector primario como los del secundario y terciario de la economía del cantón y se encuentren comprendidos además en alguno de los sectores industrial, comercial o de servicios conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 2 de esta Ley: ''Artículo 2: Definiciones preliminares: Para los efectos de esta Ley, se entenderán los siguientes conceptos: (... ) b) Sector comercial: comprende el conjunto de personas que desarrollan actividades productivas consistentes en el trasiego o la enajenación por cualquier título autorizado en el ordenamiento jurídico de toda clase de bienes y servicios. Además incluye los actos de valoración de bienes económicos según la oferta y la demanda, tales como casas de representación, agencias, filiales, sucursales y, en general, todo lo que involucre transacciones de mercado de cualquier tipo, bancos y establecimientos financieros, casas de banca y de cambio correduría de bolsa y similares, e instituciones aseguradoras...” Arguye que las cooperativas como formas de organización social y económica, pretenden una distribución equitativa del ingreso y el mayor bienestar de sus miembros, meta vital en un Estado Social de Derecho como el nuestro; y que es por ello, que el artículo 64 de la Constitución Política expresa: \"El Estado fomentará la creación de cooperativas, como medio de facilitar mejores condiciones de vida a los trabajadores\" y el numeral primero de la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas y Creación del Instituto Nacional de Fomento Cooperativo, No. 4179 de 22 de agosto de 1968 y sus reformas, reitera: \"Declárese de conveniencia y utilidad pública y de interés social, la constitución y funcionamiento de asociaciones cooperativas, por ser uno de los medios más eficaces para el desarrollo económico, social, cultural y democrático de los habitantes del país.\" El cooperativismo, prosigue exponiendo, parte de tres valores fundamentales: igualdad, libertad y solidaridad, lo anterior, resulta importante, porque la regulación legal sobre las cooperativas, como es lógico, tiene su eje en esos valores y principios. Argumenta que actualmente la situación de las cooperativas ha variado, y la competencia es un factor clave para su crecimiento, incluso, vemos como hoy en día cooperativas creadas para cierto gremio, aceptan clientes que no necesariamente corresponden a dicho gremio, que existe una realidad económica que no debe ser dejada de lado, la existencia de una ficción jurídica que generalmente no responde a la realidad, puesto que es normal que las cooperativas busquen alcanzar sus metas sociales mediante la generación de lucro, con el cual se promueve el bienestar, crecimiento de sus asociados y aumentar el capital. Sostiene que en el presente caso, debemos analizar detenidamente el principio de realidad económica, principio que por demás nos acerca aún más a la realidad de ese cantón, por medio del cual se hace el cobro justo de los tributos, y se deja de lado, los parámetros inciertos, es claro que existen ganancias en las cooperativas, giros financieros que benefician a sus asociados. Señala que las cooperativas como empresas que son, deben generar excedentes económicos para hacer viable y sostenible su desarrollo y el logro de sus fines, especialmente, el de brindar más y mejores servicios a sus asociados y aumentar si es posible la cantidad de ellos, así como cualquier empresa, las cooperativas pueden tener beneficios o pérdidas, aunque en su génesis las cooperativas no tengan su razón de ser en la obtención de beneficios o ganancias, actualmente todas y sin o la mayoría, y en el caso concreto Nombre46090 tienen como objeto principal aumentar la rentabilidad de las actividades de sus miembros, pues por la naturaleza de su actividad principal, al enfocarse en el ahorro y crédito, es generador de riqueza que culmina con la distribución de dividendos entre sus miembros, así las cosas y si en la realidad se está produciendo esa ganancia -rentabilidad económica-, sí estamos en presencia del hecho generador que exige el artículo 79 del Código Municipal y la Ley 8821, Ley de Licencias y Patentes de Nombre265 . También niega que exista una exoneración legal a favor de las cooperativas. Reitera que la creación de las exoneraciones legales de impuestos o la liberación de la obligación de pago del tributo se otorga únicamente por voluntad expresa del legislador y en ese sentido en la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas, no existe precepto alguno que exima a las cooperativas del pago del impuesto por concepto de patente municipal. A partir de la cita de los artículos 6 y 78 de la ley de esa materia, desprende que parte de los beneficios creados por el legislador a favor de las cooperativas, se encuentra la exención de los impuestos municipales para los actos de formación, inscripción y modificación de estatutos, además que les exime de demás requisitos legales para su funcionamiento. Considera que no existe exoneración alguna por el pago del impuesto de patente, más aún, el legislador previó la exoneración al impuesto sobre la Renta, y en esa oportunidad de haber querido, claramente hubiera dispuesto la exoneración a favor de ellas, para con el impuesto de patente municipal, no se puede desprender de donde la letra de la ley no dispone, la existencia de una exoneración tributaria, no incluida por el legislador. Estima que una interpretación distinta sería violentar el principio de legalidad tributaria contenido en el numeral 5 inciso b) del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, creando de manera ilegal una exención no dispuesta en la ley y transgredir, también, el artículo 6 de ese mismo cuerpo normativo, que prohíbe llenar el vacío legal mediante la analogía, para la creación de exenciones.\n\nTERCERO. HECHOS PROBADOS: El cotejo de los elementos probatorios disponibles, permite a esta Nombre14216 tener como acreditados los siguientes hechos de relevancia para el objeto del proceso y a la forma en que se resuelve:\n\n1.- Que la Cooperativa Nacional de Educadores R.L. (COOPENAE R.L.), es una asociación cooperativista de ahorro y crédito, constituida bajo el marco regulatorio de la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas Ley No. 4179 de 22 de agosto de 1968 y sus reformas, que se encuentra inscrita ante el Departamento de Organizaciones Sociales del Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, mediante resolución número C-0148 del 18 de noviembre del año 1966. (No controvertido, certificaciones visibles en los folios 1 a 5 del expediente judicial).\n\n2.- Que Nombre46090 se encuentra autorizada para el ejercicio de la actividad de intermediación financiera supervisada por la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras. (No controvertido, certificaciones visibles en los folios 7 a 17 del expediente judicial).\n\n3.- Que el 28 de abril de 2011 Nombre46090 . presentó a la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón solicitud de licencia municipal, para el local que llevaba su nombre para desarrollar la actividad de “Ahorro y Crédito”. (Folio 002 del expediente administrativo).\n\n4.- Que mediante resolución administrativa número RES 0645-11- SPL de las 14:56 horas del 27 de junio de 2011, la Coordinación del Sub Proceso de Licencias y Patentes de la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón dispuso condicionar de la licencia solicitada, entre otros extremos, al pago del impuesto de patentes por un monto trimestral inicial de ciento seis mil cuatrocientos treinta y dos colones a partir del tercer trimestre de 2010, por lo que previo a la adjudicación, debía cancelar cuatrocientos cincuenta y dos mil ciento sesenta y seis colones por tal concepto más nueve mil cuarenta y tres colones por timbre de Parques Nacionales, como pago inicial de ese impuesto. (Folios 031 a 034 del expediente administrativo).\n\n5.- Que Nombre46090 . cumplió con el pago referido en la resolución 0645-11- SPL el cinco de agosto de 2011, por lo que mediante acto de adjudicación número ADJ-26325-SPL del diez de agosto de 2011, le fue concedida la licencia solicitada. (Folios 039 y 040 del expediente administrativo).\n\n6.- Que mediante escrito presentado el día 26 de marzo de dos mil doce, la representación de la Cooperativa Nacional de Educadores R.L. solicitó al Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón, se declarara la exoneración a favor de su representada respecto del pago de impuesto de patente municipal por la sucursal que tiene abierta en esa jurisdicción al ser una Cooperativa sin fines de lucro y no realizar el hecho generador. (No controvertido, folios 1 a 5 del expediente de apelación municipal).\n\n7.- Que mediante Sesión Extraordinaria N° 039-12, Artículo 2, inciso 20 celebrada el 14 de junio de dos mil doce, el Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón dispuso: “Denegar la petición de Nombre46090 ya que ellos no están incluidos entre las identidades (sic) o actividades que pueden ser exoneradas según la Ley 8821 de Licencias y Patentes.” (folio 13 del expediente de apelación municipal).\n\n8.- Que el Acuerdo descrito en el hecho anterior, le fue notificado a la entidad agraviada mediante fax, el día 29 de junio de dos mil doce y, mediante escrito presentado el día 09 de julio de dos mil doce, el personero de la Cooperativa, formula recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio contra el mismo. (folios 13 y 14 a 25 del expediente de apelación municipal).\n\n9.- Que por medio de Acuerdo tomado en Sesión Extraordinaria N° 066-13, artículo 2, inciso 16, celebrada el día 11 de julio de dos mil trece, el Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón resolvió declarar sin lugar el recurso de revocatoria presentado por el personero de Nombre46090 . por no haberse presentado la acción recursiva en los términos que señala el artículo 156 del Código Municipal y, admitió la apelación para ante la Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. (folio 98 a 102 del expediente de apelación municipal).\n\n10.- Que mediante resolución Nº 566-2014 de las 09:55 horas del 20 de noviembre del año 2014 de la Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, en su calidad de Jerarca Impropio Bifásico, dispuso lo siguiente: “POR TANTO. Se confirma el Acuerdo tomado en la Sesión Extraordinaria N° 066-13, artículo 2, inciso 16, celebrada el 11 de julio de dos mil trece. Se da por agotada la vía administrativa. Por la forma en que se resuelve y consecuentemente, por innecesario, se omite pronunciamiento respecto de la apelación formulada respecto en contra del Acuerdo del concejo municipal N° 2, inciso 20 de la Sesión Extraordinaria n° 39-12 del 14 de junio de dos mil doce.” (No controvertido, folios 042 a 053 del expediente administrativo).\n\nCUARTO. AJUSTE A DERECHO DEL CONTENIDO DE LOS ACTOS IMPUGNADOS. Tal y como se desprende de los antecedentes desarrollados supra, como objeto de este proceso se pretende la declaratoria de nulidad absoluta de las resoluciones N°566-2014 de las 09:45 horas del 20 de noviembre del año 2014 de la Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, en su condición de jerarca impropio bifásico de la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, la cual confirmó lo actuado por la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, mediante acuerdo tomado por el Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón en Sesión Extraordinaria N° 066-13, Artículo 2), Inciso 16) del 11 de julio de 2013. Tales resoluciones declararon improcedente la solicitud de exoneración interpuesta por Nombre46090 . respecto del pago de impuesto de patente municipal por la sucursal que tiene abierta en el Cantón de Pérez Zeledón, alegando ser una Cooperativa sin fines de lucro y no realizar el hecho generador. Además, a partir del eventual acogimiento de esas pretensiones, solicitó el reintegro de las sumas pagadas y la declaración jurisdiccional de que la actora es sujeto exento del tributo de marras. De inicio, y sin perjuicio de las razones adicionales que en considerandos separados serán expuestas, la mayoría de esta Integración coincide plenamente con lo dictaminado por la Sección Tercera de este Tribunal en la resolución cuya nulidad aquí se pide, por lo que, siendo que el reproche que se formula afecta únicamente su contenido y fundamentación, estima improcedente el alegato de nulidad que sostiene la actora. Al respecto, en un asunto que guarda identidad con el que aquí nos ocupa pues se trató de una petición de exoneración del mismo impuesto formulada por otra Cooperativa contra la misma Municipalidad aquí demandada, se señaló que: “I.- El otrora artículo 79 del Código Municipal -hoy día artículo 88 en virtud de haberse corrido su numeración por el canon 1 de la Ley de Fortalecimiento de la Policía Municipal N° 9542 del 23/04/2018- señala: \"Para ejercer cualquier actividad lucrativa, los interesados deberán contar con licencia municipal respectiva, la cual se obtendrá mediante el pago de un impuesto. Dicho impuesto se pagará durante todo el tiempo en que se haya ejercido la actividad lucrativa o por el tiempo que se haya poseído la licencia, aunque la actividad no se haya realizado\". Como se aprecia claramente, el parámetro para la obtención de una licencia municipal para toda aquella persona física o jurídica, en un determinado cantón, es que realice una actividad lucrativa, término que según la definición de la Real Academia Española, significa \"que produce utilidad y ganancia\". / II.- Aunque ciertamente de conformidad con el numeral 2 de la Ley N° 6756, Reforma Integral a Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas del 05/05/1982 se dispone que: \"Las cooperativas son asociaciones voluntarias de personas y no de capitales, con plena personalidad jurídica, de duración indefinida y de responsabilidad limitada, en las que los individuos se organizan democráticamente a fin de satisfacer sus necesidades y promover su mejoramiento económico y social, como un medio de superar su condición humana y su formación individual, y en las cuales el motivo del trabajo y de la producción, de la distribución y del consumo, es el servicio y no el lucro\", también constituye una realidad, que aparte de la función social asignada por el propio Constituyente en el artículo 64 de nuestra Carta Política y por el legislador en el artículo 2 supra citado, existe otra labor de dichas agrupaciones que está enteramente vinculada con la actividad comercial con terceras personas y no proveniente de su función social, sin que por ello se desvirtúe los fines para los cuales fueron creadas. En tal sentido, tanto la doctrina como la jurisprudencia ha reconocido expresamente la realización de fines económicos -lucrativos- de las cooperativas. Así por ejemplo, el tratadista Nombre153996 , al analizar la posibilidad de que las cooperativas realicen actividades ajenas al fin social que les corresponde, ha indicado: \"la cooperativa es por su naturaleza una empresa porque ejerce una actividad económica organizada a los fines de la producción y cambio de bienes y servicios, que son organizaciones que no cumplen obras benéficas o caritativas, sino que como toda empresa económica, tienden a conseguir fines propiamente económicos, de modo económico\" (Nombre153996 , Tratado de Derecho Cooperativo. Editora Zeus, Córdoba, 1974, pág. 196). Por su parte, la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en su voto número 5487-94 de las 19:03 horas del 21 de setiembre de 1994, para lo que resulta de interés aquí, razonó: \"En virtud de lo anterior, si la Cooperativa recurrente pretende desarrollar una actividad comercial para la venta al público de alimentos, lo cual es completamente diferente al objeto para la cual fue constituida, es evidente que sí debe solicitar a la Municipalidad la licencia comercial correspondiente, en tanto la venta de alimentos al público no es la razón por la que se constituyó la Cooperativa\". Y es que tampoco podría encasillarse la exención del impuesto de patentes en el artículo 6 de la Ley N° 6756, por cuanto en su literalidad y para lo que interesa, se ha regulado: \"Las asociaciones cooperativas disfrutarán de los siguientes privilegios: a) Exención del pago del impuesto territorial por un término de diez años a partir de la fecha de su inscripción legal. 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\" [énfasis suplido]. Quien suscribe, a diferencia de mis compañeros de Nombre14216, no aprecia dentro del texto legal citado referente a las exenciones, que se haya regulado la liberación expresa a las cooperativas, del pago de patente comercial, como sí se hizo con otros impuestos. Al decir la norma que está exenta de todo impuesto o tasa -nacional o municipal-, entiende este juzgador que está refiriéndose a los supuestos relacionados con la estructura de la cooperativa -formación, inscripción, modificación o funcionamiento propio de la organización-, no así al beneficio -exención- de no tener que obtener una licencia comercial para el desarrollo de cualquier actividad lícita y lucrativa, ni mucho menos, a su pago correlativo del impuesto de patente. / III.- Ahora bien, tal y como se explicó en la resolución número 111-2016 de la Sección Tercera de este Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, actuando como jerarca impropio, y que justamente ha sido impugnada en esta litis, la Ley de Regulación de Licencias y Patentes de Pérez Zeledón N° 8821 del 03/05/2010, desarrolló todo lo referido al impuesto de patentes de las actividades comerciales que se explotan dentro de dicho cantón, gravando -entre otras- las actividades productivas relacionadas con el sector industrial y comercial, exceptuando las expresamente indicadas en ese cuerpo normativo. En ese sentido, en el numeral 2 definió: \"a) Actividad productiva: es la que, estando inserta dentro de la economía del cantón, contribuye a la producción o transformación, tanto cualitativa como cuantitativa, de los insumos o materias primas en bienes y/o servicios; asimismo, implica la transformación de algunos bienes y servicios más simples en otros más complejos, así como la simple prestación de servicios, de manera directa o indirecta, al consumidor, agregando con todo ello un valor estimable en términos de producción y desarrollo tanto en las esferas económica, como social y humana en general. b) Actividad lucrativa: es la que se traduce en una utilidad, ganancia o beneficio de tipo patrimonial o económico, derivado del ejercicio de una actividad productiva inserta en cualquiera de los campos de la actividad humana. / g) Licencia municipal: es la autorización que la Municipalidad otorga a una persona física o jurídica, de naturaleza privada o pública, para el ejercicio de una actividad productiva en el cantón de Pérez Zeledón. / i) Patente municipal: es el impuesto al cual queda obligada la persona a la que se le ha otorgado una licencia para el ejercicio de una actividad productiva. / l) Sector comercial: comprende el conjunto de personas que desarrollan actividades productivas consistentes en el trasiego o la enajenación por cualquier título autorizado en el ordenamiento jurídico de toda clase de bienes y servicios. Además, incluye los actos de valoración de bienes económicos, según la oferta y la demanda, tales como casas de representación, agencias, filiales, sucursales y, en general, todo lo que involucre transacciones de mercado de cualquier tipo, bancos y establecimientos financieros, casas de banca y de cambio, correduría de bolsa y similares, e instituciones aseguradoras. m) Sector industrial: se refiere al conjunto de personas que desarrollan actividades productivas consistentes en operaciones materiales ejecutadas para extraer, transformar o manufacturar uno o varios productos. Incluye el procesamiento de productos agrícolas y la transformación mecánica, química o por cualquier otro medio, de sustancias orgánicas o inorgánicas en productos nuevos o diferentes, mediante procesos mecanizados o de cualquier otro tipo, realizados tanto en fábricas como en domicilios. Incluye tanto la creación de productos nuevos como la transformación de otros ya existentes, así como los talleres de reparación, mantenimiento y acondicionamiento de estos productos y de las máquinas o equipos que se utilizan para producirlos\". A su vez, el ordinal 43 de dicha Ley estableció el hecho generador, precisando: \"Las personas físicas o jurídicas que se dediquen al ejercicio de actividades productivas de cualquier tipo que estas sean, en el cantón de Pérez Zeledón, deberán obtener la licencia respectiva y pagarán, a la Municipalidad, el impuesto de patentes que las faculte para desarrollar estas actividades. La Municipalidad fijará la tarifa del impuesto de patentes de acuerdo con la presente Ley\". Y en el canon 45 definió a los contribuyentes, señalando para lo que resulta de interés aquí: \"Son contribuyentes del impuesto de patentes de la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, las siguientes personas: (…) b) De conformidad con la naturaleza de la actividad que desarrollen: son todos los que realizan actividades productivas, sin importar si estas son o no consideradas o declaradas por ellos mismos como eminentemente lucrativas\". Finalmente, en el artículo 64 se reguló cuáles son las actividades exentas del pago del impuesto de patentes, señalando tal norma: \"Están exentas del pago del impuesto de patentes de la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, total o parcialmente en la proporción que aquí se indica, las siguientes actividades productivas u organizacionales del cantón: a) Los partidos políticos, los sindicatos, los colegios profesionales y sus filiales, las fundaciones constituidas e inscritas debidamente de conformidad con la Ley N° 5338, de 28 de agosto de 1973, las organizaciones no gubernamentales que trabajen exclusivamente en la consecución de fines públicos, las asociaciones solidaristas constituidas e inscritas debidamente de conformidad con la Ley N° 6970, de 7 de noviembre de 1984, las asociaciones de administración de acueductos rurales, las asociaciones deportivas constituidas e inscritas debidamente de conformidad con la Ley N° 5418, de 20 de noviembre de 1973, las de desarrollo comunal constituidas e inscritas debidamente de conformidad con la Ley N° 3859, de 7 de abril de 1967 y, en general, todas las empresas públicas del Estado así como las organizaciones e instituciones del Estado tanto centralizado como descentralizado. No estarán exentas las actividades productivas de consumo, generación o distribución de bienes y servicios que ellos realicen o que hayan concesionado o autorizado a explotar a terceros\". Como se aprecia de las anteriores disposiciones transcritas, tampoco en la regulación propia del cantón de Nombre265 , el legislador dispuso exonerar a las cooperativas del impuesto de patentes, cuando éstas realicen actividades lucrativas dentro de su jurisdicción. / IV.- Una vez examinado el anterior recuento normativo, es criterio de este juzgador, que si el legislador hubiere tenido la intención clara y fehaciente de exonerar a las cooperativas del pago de patente comercial, lo hubiera realizado expresamente, pero ni en la Ley N° 6756, Reforma Integral a Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas del 05/05/1982, ni en la Ley de Regulación de Licencias y Patentes de Nombre265 N° 8821 del 03/05/2010, se dejó así plasmado, no pudiendo por ende distinguirse donde la ley no lo hace, pues sería como crear una exoneración tributaria, no incluida por el legislador, corriendo el riesgo de atentar contra el principio de legalidad tributaria contenido en el numeral 5 inciso b) del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios. Además, tampoco puede perderse de vista el principio de realidad económica, máxime entratándose de una entidad de tanta envergadura en el mercado económico nacional como la que acciona en esta litis, siendo fácil percibir e identificar como un hecho público y notorio, que la Cooperativa de Productores de Leche Dos Pinos Responsabilidad Limitada, tiene un giro mercantil dirigido al lucro para obtener una ganancia; así las cosas, aún y cuando la ley disponga que las cooperativas no tienen fines lucrativos, si en la realidad la cooperativa actora está generando rendimientos, sí estamos en presencia del hecho generador que exige el artículo 79 -hoy día 88- del Código Municipal y la Ley de Regulación de Licencias y Patentes de Nombre265 N° 8821, y por ello, debe obtener una patente para el ejercicio a derecho de su actividad lucrativa.” (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Sétima, número 061-2018 de las trece horas del dieciséis de agosto de dos mil dieciocho). Como puede apreciarse, el voto citado, que entonces fue de minoría pero que en esta Integración comparte la mayoría, guarda identidad con el asunto que ahora nos ocupa, en el tanto conoce solicitud de exoneración de una Asociación Cooperativa planteada contra la Municipalidad de Nombre265 por las mismas razones de fondo que aquí fueron esgrimidas, por lo que, mutatis mutandis únicamente en lo referente a la identificación de la resolución que agotó la vía administrativa, por mayoría se invoca tal razonamiento a efecto de declarar la falta de derecho de la demanda.\n\nQUINTO. LAS EXONERACIONES CONTENIDAS EN LA LEY DE ASOCIACIONES COOPERATIVAS NO AFECTAN EL IMPUESTO CREADO POR LA LEY 8821: Aunque las razones dadas en el considerando anterior son suficientes para declarar la improcedencia de la demanda, también considera este Tribunal, en este apartado por unanimidad, que de una combinación armónica y analógica de las normas jurídicas que resultan aplicables al caso, la aquí actora 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”. Véase que, aunque ciertamente en el anterior precepto normativo sí se le exoneró a las asociaciones cooperativas de todo tipo de impuestos, incluido el de patentes municipales, hay que resaltar que con posterioridad a la promulgación de dicho cuerpo legal, fue creada la Ley de Regulación de Licencias y Patentes de Nombre265 , Ley N° 8821 del 3 de mayo de 2010, que entre otros alcances reguló el Impuesto de Patentes para ese Cantón, definió el hecho generador del tributo, y cuáles son los sujetos obligados, en los términos que serán analizados en el considerando siguiente. Lo anterior resulta relevante en el tanto que el artículo 50 de la Ley Reguladora de Exoneraciones Vigentes, Derogatorias y Excepciones, Ley N° 7293 del 31 de marzo de 1992, establece de manera diáfana: \"Modifícase el artículo 63 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios para que diga: “Artículo 63-Límite de aplicación: Aunque haya disposición expresa de la ley tributaria, la exención no se extiende a los tributos establecidos posteriormente a su creación”.\" Así, de la simple lectura, revisión y confrontación de las fechas de creación y vigencia de las leyes que nos ocupa, tanto la que contenía la exoneración de todo tipo de impuestos para las asociaciones cooperativas, Ley N° 6756 del 5 de mayo de 1982, que reformó la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas N° 4179 del 22 de agosto de 1968, como la Ley de Regulación de Licencias y Patentes de Nombre265 , Ley N° 8821 del 3 de mayo de 2010, se deduce con meridiana claridad que las exoneraciones fijadas en la primera no afectan a la ley posterior. La Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia ha mantenido la tesis que ahora expone este Tribunal, y precisamente analizando la misma ley 8821 de Nombre265 , en el voto número 001970-F-S1-2020 de las 11:00 horas del 03 de junio del 2020, en un caso donde otra agrupación cooperativa reclamó al mismo Gobierno Local aquí demandado la exención del impuesto de patentes, indicó, para lo que aquí interesa, lo siguiente: “(…) IV.- Para esta Nombre14216 resulta innegable, la existencia del IPM creado por la Ley 8821 del 3 de mayo de 2010, es un tributo posterior a la exoneración genérica creada por el mandato 6 inciso b) de la Ley 4179. Si bien la Ley 4179 en la norma recién citada establece la exención de todo impuesto o tasa, nacional o municipal, sobre los actos de formación, inscripción, modificación de estatutos y demás requisitos para su funcionamiento, lo cual claramente incluye el pago de patentes, por tratarse de un requisito ineludible para el funcionamiento de una cooperativa que realiza una actividad productiva, es claro, que conforme a la reforma realizada mediante el canon 50 de la Ley 7293 al precepto 63 del CNPT, las exenciones tributarias no pueden ser extendidas a los tributos que sean creados con posterioridad. Así las cosas, es inobjetable, las actividades productivas generadas por la actora se encuentran sujetas al pago del IPM del Ayuntamiento demandado, conforme al ordinal 45 de la Ley 8821, pues se trata de un impuesto municipal creado con posterioridad a la norma exonerativa establecida en el artículo 6 inciso de la Ley 4179 (…)”. Nótese entonces que ya la propia Sala de Casación de esta Jurisdicción ha dictaminado la no afectación del impuesto de patente creado por la Ley 8821 de las exoneraciones que hubieren sido acordadas por ley previa, incluyendo las establecidas en la Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas y sus reformas, por lo que tampoco puede acogerse la pretensión de que se declare que la actora está exonerada de ese tributo, pues, 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.\n\nSEXTO. EL HECHO GENERADOR DEL TRIBUTO CREADO EN LA LEY 8821 NO CONTEMPLA EL EJERCICIO DE ACTIVIDAD LUCRATIVA. Como quedó referenciado en el apartado correspondiente, el eje central sobre el que gravita toda la teoría del caso de la actora, consiste en que no tiene fines de lucro, y que en razón de ello no ejercita el hecho generador, y en consecuencia, sería un ente no sujeto al tributo de patente municipal. También por unanimidad este Colegio colige que toda esa argumentación deviene inconducente en el tanto que la ley específica del Cantón de Pérez Zeledón que sirve de sustento para el actuar de la Administración demandada, fija el hecho generador y la condición de sujeto obligado sin tener en consideración la finalidad lucrativa. Valga precisar entonces, que como derivación del artículo 121 inciso 13) de la Constitución Política, el artículo 88 (anteriormente artículo 79) del Código Municipal dispone que, para ejercer cualquier actividad lucrativa en los cantones, los interesados deberán contar con la licencia municipal respectiva, la cual se obtendrá mediante el pago de un impuesto. Dicho impuesto se pagará durante todo el tiempo en que se ejerza la actividad lucrativa o por el tiempo que se haya poseído la licencia, aunque la actividad no se haya realizado. A partir de esa norma es viable distinguir entre la licencia, la cual responde al acto administrativo que habilita al particular para ejercer determinada actividad de naturaleza lucrativa y el pago del tributo correspondiente por ello, que responde, precisamente, al Impuesto que se discute. Con mayor precisión, nótese que la capacidad de administración tributaria de los entes locales tiene base constitucional, específicamente en el inciso 13 del artículo 121, en cuanto dispone que corresponde exclusivamente a la Asamblea Legislativa autorizar los impuestos municipales; uno de los cuales sería el Impuesto de Patente, regularmente vinculado a la emisión de una licencia municipal, aspectos ambos que, aunque distintos, guardan estrecha vinculación según lo explica la Sala Constitucional: “IV.- Sobre la distinción entre licencia y patente, y el cobro de patente en la Ley impugnada.- La licencia es un permiso para desarrollar una determinada actividad y la patente es un impuesto por el desarrollo de dicha actividad. En materia municipal, normalmente los actos administrativos de otorgamiento de licencia y de cobro de patente van juntos, con una excepción, justamente cuando se trata de actividades lucrativas desarrolladas por un concesionario.” (Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, voto 6731–2016). Así, en lo concerniente al tema específico que interesa, el artículo 88 del Código Municipal, dispone que: “Para ejercer cualquier actividad lucrativa, los interesados deberán contar con la licencia municipal respectiva, la cual se obtendrá mediante el pago de un impuesto. Dicho impuesto se pagará durante todo el tiempo en que se haya ejercido la actividad lucrativa o por el tiempo que se haya poseído la licencia, aunque la actividad no se haya realizado. / En casos de calamidad pública o emergencia nacional o cantonal, declarados por el Gobierno central, las municipalidades e intendencias podrán suspender, a petición de los licenciatarios, temporalmente la vigencia de las licencias otorgadas por un plazo máximo hasta de doce meses. Durante el plazo de suspensión, al no estar desarrollándose la actividad comercial, no se cobrará el impuesto correspondiente a que hace referencia el párrafo anterior. / Toda solicitud de suspensión de licencia la deberá realizar el licenciatario por escrito y señalar un medio para recibir notificaciones futuras. El licenciatario podrá solicitar la reactivación de la licencia en cualquier momento, con lo cual se retomará el cobro del impuesto correspondiente. Para la reactivación efectiva de la licencia, el interesado deberá haber cancelado cualquier pendiente relacionado con este impuesto o estar al día en caso de que esté cancelando sus pendientes a través de la figura de arreglo de pago. / Cumplidos doce meses desde la suspensión de la licencia y debidamente notificados por las administraciones tributarias municipales, los licenciatarios tendrán un plazo máximo de diez días hábiles para solicitar la reactivación de su licencia. En caso de no hacerlo dentro de dicho plazo, se tendrá por revocada, en forma automática, la licencia otorgada.” (Así reformado por el artículo 19 de la Ley para apoyar al contribuyente local, y reforzar la gestión financiera de las municipalidades, ante la emergencia nacional por la pandemia del covid-19, N° 9848 del 20 de mayo del 2020). Resulta diáfano entonces, que como materia tributaria que es, aunque ejercida por el Gobierno Local, se construye y se nutre de los principios generales de aquella, dentro de los que destaca por su atinencia al tema que nos ocupa, el de Reserva Legal, estipulado y regulado en los numerales 121.13 de la Carta Magna y 5 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, que en ese orden señalan: “Artículo 121.- Además de las otras atribuciones que le confiere esta Constitución, corresponde exclusivamente a la Asamblea Legislativa: (…) 13) Establecer los impuestos y contribuciones nacionales y autorizar los municipales (…)” y “Artículo 5.- Materia privativa de la ley. / En cuestiones tributarias solo la ley puede: / a) Crear, modificar o suprimir tributos; definir el hecho generador de la relación tributaria; establecer las tarifas de los tributos y sus bases de cálculo; e indicar el sujeto pasivo; / b) Otorgar exenciones, reducciones o beneficios; / c) Tipificar las infracciones y establecer las respectivas sanciones; / d) Establecer privilegios, preferencias y garantías para los créditos tributarios; y / e) Regular los modos de extinción de los créditos tributarios por medios distintos del pago. / En relación a tasas, cuando la ley no la prohíba, el Reglamento de la misma puede variar su monto para que cumplan su destino en forma más idónea, previa intervención del organismo que por ley sea el encargado de regular las tarifas de los servicios públicos”. Por ello, la creación del tributo objeto de este proceso, el hecho generador que lo constituye, así como la base de cálculo de su monto, son aspectos que, entre otros, deben estar prefijados en leyes en sentido formal y material, emanadas de la Asamblea Legislativa, para cada Cantón en específico, dado el carácter territorial de las competencias municipales. Ergo, para cada Cantón la regulación es distinta y específica, y aunque puedan guardar similitudes, nada obsta para que se legislen elementos constitutivos del tributo diferentes de un Cantón a otro. Al respecto, la Sala Constitucional ha explicado que: “(...) las leyes que regulan este tipo de impuesto pueden contener distintos hechos generadores e incluso, gravar la actividad productiva, entre otros presupuestos. Esta conclusión se deriva de la correcta interpretación de las normas que regulan la institución de este tributo en el Código Municipal, que en su artículo 98, dispone que \"nadie podrá abrir establecimientos dedicados a actividades lucrativas o realizar comercio en forma ambulante, sin contar con la respectiva licencia municipal\" (el subrayado no es del original), y en el artículo 96 ídem, que señala que todas las actividades lucrativas, sujetas a licencia, deben pagar el impuesto de patente. De esos textos se desprende que las actividades lucrativas son legalmente susceptibles de ser grabadas con un tributo o impuesto de patente, quedando a criterio de la administración municipal, la estructuración de los elementos de la obligación tributaria. (...)” (Voto 2197-92 de 10 de mayo de 1993) (énfasis suplido por este Tribunal). Bajo los parámetros referidos, en el análisis del caso concreto encontramos que el tributo cuya no sujeción alega la actora, fue creado mediante Ley número 8821 del tres de mayo de 2010 denominada “Regulación de Licencias y Patentes de Nombre265 ”, que en lo que resulta atinente a sus elementos dispuso: “ARTÍCULO 39.- Establecimiento del impuesto De conformidad con lo que establece el artículo 79 del Código Municipal, se crea el impuesto de patentes municipales en el cantón de Pérez Zeledón, con el fin de que los administrados contribuyan solidariamente al desarrollo del cantón y a la vez puedan ejercer sus derechos sobre las actividades productivas, consagrados en las licencias municipales otorgadas a ellos. / ARTÍCULO 40.- Obligación del pago del impuesto derivado de la existencia de una licencia. Las actividades productivas que se desarrollen en el cantón de Pérez Zeledón solo podrán realizarse mediante autorización municipal por medio de una licencia. Para el ejercicio de esta licencia, el administrado deberá pagar a la Municipalidad un impuesto de patentes. (…) ELEMENTOS DEL IMPUESTO DE PATENTES. ARTÍCULO 43.- Hecho generador. Las personas físicas o jurídicas que se dediquen al ejercicio de actividades productivas de cualquier tipo que estas sean, en el cantón de Pérez Zeledón, deberán obtener la licencia respectiva y pagarán, a la Municipalidad, el impuesto de patentes que las faculte para desarrollar estas actividades. La Municipalidad fijará la tarifa del impuesto de patentes de acuerdo con la presente Ley. / ARTÍCULO 44.- Sujetos pasivos. Son sujetos pasivos del impuesto de patentes de la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, tanto los contribuyentes como los declarantes de este. Es declarante del impuesto todo administrado que ejerza una actividad productiva y sea cesionario de una licencia municipal y que, en razón de ello, esté obligado a rendir, de acuerdo con esta Ley, declaración jurada de sus ingresos brutos, con el fin de determinar el monto del impuesto por cobrarle. Es contribuyente del impuesto quien, siendo declarante, debe contribuir, además, con el pago de determinada suma de dinero como monto de su obligación tributaria. / ARTÍCULO 45.- Contribuyentes. Son contribuyentes del impuesto de patentes de la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, las siguientes personas: a) De conformidad con la naturaleza de las personas: todas las personas físicas y jurídicas, con las únicas excepciones que expresamente dispone esta Ley. b) De conformidad con la naturaleza de la actividad que desarrollen: son todos los que realizan actividades productivas, sin importar si estas son o no consideradas o declaradas por ellos mismos como eminentemente lucrativas.” (las negritas y subrayados no corresponden al original, han sido suplidos por este Tribunal). Resulta entonces, absolutamente diáfano que toda la tesis de la actora respecto de que no tiene finalidad de lucro y que su actividad no es lucrativa, resulta irrelevante para el caso concreto de Nombre265 , que es el único que aquí se examina. El legislador, por instancia de la propia administración, optó para este Cantón por prescindir del concepto de lucro a efectos de determinar el hecho generador y el sujeto pasivo. Para el primero, definió que sería el ejercicio de cualquier tipo de actividad productiva dentro del Cantón, y respecto de lo segundo, enfatizó que estarían sujetos al tributo todos los que realizan actividades productivas, sin importar si estas son o no consideradas o declaradas por ellos mismos como eminentemente lucrativas. A mayor abundamiento y claridad, la misma ley definió qué debe entenderse por actividad productiva y qué por actividad lucrativa, deslindándolas por completo, y dejando claro que se trata de actividades diferentes, disponiendo al efecto que: “ARTÍCULO 2.-Definiciones preliminares. Para los efectos de la presente Ley, se entenderán los siguientes conceptos: a) Actividad productiva: es la que, estando inserta dentro de la economía del cantón, contribuye a la producción o transformación, tanto cualitativa como cuantitativa, de los insumos o materias primas en bienes y/o servicios; asimismo, implica la transformación de algunos bienes y servicios más simples en otros más complejos, así como la simple prestación de servicios, de manera directa o indirecta, al consumidor, agregando con todo ello un valor estimable en términos de producción y desarrollo tanto en las esferas económica, como social y humana en general. b) Actividad lucrativa: es la que se traduce en una utilidad, ganancia o beneficio de tipo patrimonial o económico, derivado del ejercicio de una actividad productiva inserta en cualquiera de los campos de la actividad humana.” A tenor con todo lo expuesto, resulta innegable que la actuación administrativa cuya nulidad se pretende se encuentra ajustada a derecho, que la actora se encuentra sujeta al impuesto de patentes en el Cantón de Nombre265 y que no cuenta con exoneración que la beneficie, por lo que la demanda debe ser declarada sin lugar en todos sus extremos.\n\nSÉTIMO. EXCEPCIONES: La Municipalidad demandada opuso la excepción de falta de derecho. En los Considerandos precedentes, el Tribunal ha detallado las razones por las cuales estima que los actos atacados están ajustados a derecho, no los afecta vicio de nulidad alguna, que la Cooperativa actora se encuentra sujeta al pago del Impuesto de Patentes de Nombre265 , y que no aplica a su favor la exoneración que pretendió. Producto de lo anterior, tampoco tendría derecho la actora a la devolución de los montos que por ese concepto ya ha pagado. El corolario de todo lo expuesto es que debe acogerse la defensa opuesta, declarando sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos.\n\nOCTAVO. COSTAS: De conformidad con el numeral 193 del CPCA, las costas procesales y personales constituyen una carga que se impone a la parte vencida por el hecho de serlo. La dispensa de esta condena solo es viable cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar o bien, cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas cuya existencia desconociera la parte contraria. En la especie, no encontramos motivo alguno que permita aplicar las excepciones citadas, razón por lo cual las costas -procesales y personales- serán a cargo de la actora.\n\nNOVENO. NOTA DEL JUEZ IRÍAS OBANDO. Con el mayor respeto y consideración a mis compañeros de Cámara, disiento de ellos únicamente en las razones dadas en el Considerando Cuarto de esta sentencia. En específico, no acuerpo que la Administración demandada o el Tribunal puedan, al amparo del principio de realidad económica, determinar a priori que una Asociación Cooperativa determinada ejerce actividad lucrativa sujeta al impuesto de patentes, cuando ese sea el hecho generador. En mi criterio, una determinación en ese sentido, en cuanto se distancia de la naturaleza otorgada por ley a tales entidades, solo es posible como resultado de un procedimiento de garantías con carga de la prueba para la respectiva Administración Tributaria, a tenor con lo dispuesto en los numerales 140) del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios y el artículo 317) del Código Procesal Civil vigente a la fecha de interposición de esta demanda, o del 41.1 del Código de esa materia vigente, todos con relación al 220) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Sin embargo, coincido plenamente y suscribo todas las consideraciones desarrolladas en los demás considerandos, siendo que, en particular, las detalladas en los Considerandos Quinto y Sexto son suficientes por sí solas para sostener este fallo, por lo que concurro con mi voto afirmativo a todo lo decidido en cuanto a acoger la defensa de falta de derecho, declarar sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos y condenar en costas a la actora.\n\nPOR TANTO:\n\nSe acoge la defensa de falta de derecho opuesta por la demandada. Se declara sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos. Se condena a la actora al pago de ambas costas de esta acción. Gustavo Irías Obando, Nombre125810 , Nombre457 .\n\n \n\n \n\n- Código Verificador -\n???????????????\nCQQGJLTEKUO61\n\n \n\nDocumento firmado por:\n\nGUSTAVO IRIAS OBANDO, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A\nNombre457 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A\nNombre125810 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A\n\n \n\nEXP: 15-002285-1027-CAGoicoechea, Dirección7876 , 50 metros oeste del BNCR, frente a Dirección18098 . Teléfonos: 2545-0107 (EXT 01-2707) ó 2545-0099 (EXT 01-2599). Fax: 2241-5664 y 2545-0006. Correo electrónico: ...0", "body_en_text": "EXPEDIENTE:\n\n15-002285-1027-CA - 2\n\nPROCESO:\n\nCONOCIMIENTO\n\nACTOR/A:\n\nCOOPERATIVA NACIONAL DE EDUCADORES R L. (COOPENAE)\n\nDEMANDADO/A:\n\nMUNICIPALIDAD DE PEREZ ZELEDON\n\n \n\nN° 087-2022-VII\n\nTRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA, SECCIÓN SÉTIMA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL, SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA, at eight thirty hours on the twenty-third of August, two thousand twenty-two.\n\nContentious-administrative proceeding of ordinary jurisdiction filed by COOPERATIVA NACIONAL DE EDUCADORES R.L., hereinafter Nombre46090 Nombre2807., legal ID No. CED121826 represented in this proceeding by Nombre103829, of legal age, resident of San José, bearer of ID No. CED121827, in his capacity as Unlimited General Power of Attorney; against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE PÉREZ ZELEDÓN, represented by its Mayor, Nombre26960, of legal age, educator, resident of Pérez Zeledón, identity card number CED121828. Acting as Special Judicial Attorneys for the plaintiff are the legal professionals Nombre21480, identity card number CED121829, and Nombre153995, ID CED121830; and as Special Judicial Attorneys for the defendant, the licensed attorneys Jimmy Arias Dávila, identity card CED121831, and Marcos Fallas Chinchilla, ID CED121832.\n\nCONSIDERANDO:\n\nFIRST. PRELIMINARY ASPECTS:\n\n1.- By brief filed on the eleventh of March, two thousand fifteen, the representation of Nombre46090. filed a contentious-administrative ordinary lawsuit against the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, requesting that the judgment order: “1. The absolute nullity of resolutions No. 566-2014 issued at 09:45 hours on November 20, 2014, by the Third Section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, acting as the biphasic improper hierarch of the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, which confirms the actions taken by the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, through an agreement adopted by the Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón in Extraordinary Session No. 066-13, Article 2), Subsection 16) of July 11, 2013. 2. The effective refund of the monies paid under protest by this representation insofar as the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón has continued with its collection procedures regarding the municipal business license tax. I similarly request that the amount to be refunded be indexed plus the respective accumulated interest from the date of payment until its effective refund. 3. The Court is requested to rule on the condition of the plaintiff as a subject exempt from the payment of the municipal business license applicable to cooperatives, in order to avoid future collection actions by the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón. 4. That in case of opposition, the defendant be ordered to pay costs. (Folios 67 to 83 of the judicial file).\n\n2.- The Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón responded negatively to the lawsuit, raised the defense of lack of right, and requested that it be declared without merit with an order for costs against the plaintiff. (Folios 90 to 133 of the judicial file).\n\n3.- On the twenty-third of June, 2016, the Preliminary Hearing was held with the presence of representatives from both parties. There, the claims asserted in the complaint were ratified, facts 5, 6, and 10 were set as controverted, the documentary evidence offered was admitted, the proceeding was declared to be on the merits alone, and both parties presented conclusions orally. (Images 189 to 191 of the digital file).\n\n4.- The applicable procedural rules have been observed, and no defects or omissions capable of generating nullity or defenselessness for the parties are perceived. This judgment is issued unanimously, following the required deliberations and drafted by Judge Irías Obando.\n\nSECOND. THEORY OF THE CASE. SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES' POSITIONS: Nombre46090. states that it is a savings and credit cooperative association, constituted under the regulatory framework of the Cooperative Associations Law, Law No. 4179 of August 22, 1968, all its amendments, and particularly the Comprehensive Reform of the Cooperative Associations Law and Creation of the Instituto Nacional de Fomento Cooperativo, Law No. 5185; that by reason of its nature, it is registered with the Department of Social Organizations of the Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, by resolution number C-0148 of November 18, 1966; and that it is authorized to carry out financial intermediation activity in accordance with the bylaws authorized by the Ministerio de Trabajo, supervised under the regulatory framework of the Instituto Nacional de Fomento Cooperativo, which supervises the operation and pursuit of its social purposes, and by the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras; in addition to being registered with SUGEF and subject to a special regulatory regime which limits its activity to the fulfillment of its economic and social objectives that guarantee its members the most efficient and secure administration of their resources, as prescribed by Law No. 7391, Regulation of Financial Intermediation of Cooperative Organizations. It argues that Nombre46090, as a cooperative association at the national level, carries out its activity in various cantons, in which it enjoys the rights contained within the Cooperative Associations Law, for carrying out its financial intermediation activity in order to seek the social benefit of its members, in accordance with the contents of its articles of incorporation, and it turns out that for the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, financial intermediation is inherently for-profit, and for that sole reason it must pay the Business License Tax, as well as that the surpluses generated are dividends. It refers that through a brief filed on March 26, 2012, it proceeded to request exemption from the Municipal Business License Tax from the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón; that through an agreement adopted by the Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón in Extraordinary Session No. 039-12, Article 2), Subsection 20) of June 14, 2012, the request was denied, considering that Nombre46090 is not within the list contained in the Law regulating the Business License Tax of that canton, of entities exempt from the payment of the business license tax. It adds that it filed an appeal for revocation with a subsidiary appeal before the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón on July 9, 2012, considering that by its nature, it lacks for-profit purposes, and therefore is not obligated to pay the commercial license; and that through an agreement adopted by the Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón in Extraordinary Session No. 066-13, Article 2), Subsection 16) of July 11, 2013, the revocation filed was rejected upon concluding that it missed the appellate phase as established in Article 156 of the Código Municipal, proceeding to admit the subsidiary appeal filed before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, which, through resolution number 566-2014 issued at 09:45 hours on November 20, 2014, confirmed the challenged agreement and deemed the administrative remedy exhausted. It analyzes the regulations applicable to Savings and Loan Cooperatives that exempt them from paying the municipal business license, the bylaws and articles of incorporation approved by the Ministerio de Trabajo, INFOCOOP, and SUGEF that guarantee the cooperative nature of Nombre46090 and the supervision by SUGEF, as a requirement to carry out its activity, as well as case law, which it states has held that as long as the cooperative carries out the purposes for which it was constituted, it is exempt from paying the municipal business license tax. Regarding the regulations, it indicated that the taxable event provided for in Article 79) of the Código Municipal and the Business License Tax Law of the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, extracting from the citation of its numerals 43 and 2 that the cited Law at no time equates a consumer with a member of a Cooperative (on the understanding that this does not imply that said definition encompasses the term), as well as that the definition of for-profit activity does not include the surpluses generated by cooperative associations. It concludes that in accordance with the regulations it will analyze, it will be determined that Nombre46090 does not have the condition of a taxable person subject to the tax obligation to pay the business license tax. That Article 64) of the Political Constitution establishes the State's obligation to promote the creation of Cooperatives as a means to improve the living conditions of their members. That the Cooperative Associations Law stimulates and regulates cooperative activity, and the second article states that they are voluntary associations of persons and not of capital, in which individuals organize themselves democratically to satisfy their needs and promote their economic and social improvement, and the motive of work, production, distribution, and consumption is service and not for-profit gain. It infers from both regulations that cooperatives are oriented solely toward the economic and social improvement of their members without for-profit purposes. It is the constitutional provision that extends into law, and therefore the Cooperative Associations Law states that they are of public convenience, utility, and social interest as a means for economic, social, and cultural development, and Article 4 prohibits cooperatives from carrying out activities not oriented toward the indicated purposes. For its part, the cited law in its Article 21, referring to savings and loan cooperatives—such as COOPENAE—indicates that their primary purpose is to promote saving and the discreet use of personal supportive credit. That likewise, the \"Ley Reguladora de la actividad de intermediación financiera de las organizaciones cooperativas,\" No. 7391, states that these cooperatives shall be regulated by the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras, and according to Article 6), the fact that they have the management of financial resources at their disposal cannot be considered as having for-profit purposes. For its part, Article 78) states that Cooperatives do not have profits, but rather savings or surpluses, and these belong to their members, meaning that when members leave the association, it is distributed among them, thus fulfilling the social purpose of satisfying the economic and social well-being of its members, and the fact that their members obtain an economic benefit does not denature the cooperative condition. Article 6.b) of the same regulatory body exempts them from the payment of all national or municipal taxes or fees; in this way, the Legislature created a privilege for these social entities, and it is not up to the Municipality to decide which Cooperatives must pay the business license tax and which do not. Thus, it must be understood that the Business License Law of Nombre265 taxes the exercise of a for-profit activity and does not include the activity of a savings and credit cooperative, because the cooperative's activity, by special law, is not for-profit, which prevails over the general law, which is the Ley de Patentes Municipales of Nombre265. Regarding the bylaws and articles of incorporation of COOPENAE, approved by the Ministerio de Trabajo, INFOCOOP, and SUGEF, it noted that Article 13.e) states that the objectives of the cooperative are to grant different types of savings and credit services to its members through the efficiency of its operation, but without for-profit purposes, since doing so would place it outside the law. To fulfill these purposes, Article 14 of its bylaws authorizes it to capture resources from its members, grant them credit, conduct transactions with securities, establish investment funds, etc.; an activity that the law qualifies as non-profit, and according to opinion C-199-96 of the Procuraduría General de la República, Nombre46090, due to the activity it carries out, is in a special regulatory relationship, and that when they capture money from their own members for the purpose of placing it in the financial market as credit or investment, it is to foster the habit of saving and personal credit among their members, without this denatures their condition as non-profit entities, and that they are supervised by INFOCOOP or SUGEF as applicable to each, as long as they do not stray from financial intermediation, as doing so would result in sanctions. In addition to the cited opinion, the representation of Nombre46090 indicates that Article 6 of Law No. 7391 states that Savings and Credit Cooperatives do not lose their condition as promoters and drivers of the social development of their affiliates, merely by engaging in financial intermediation. Based on the above, the plaintiff concludes that the Municipality and the Third Section misinterpret its situation by considering that the fact that they engage in financial intermediation inherently means they earn a profit and therefore should not enjoy the exemption granted by the Cooperative Associations Law to all, without distinction. However, Law No. 7391 indicates that the financial intermediation activity carried out by this type of cooperative (Savings and Credit) does not have for-profit as its purpose, and its Article 2) expressly states that financial intermediation acts are cooperative acts and subject to cooperative law, and supplementarily to commercial law, insofar as it is compatible with their special nature, and the financial intermediation activity, according to Article 3 of that Law, is defined as the collection of money from its own members for the purpose of allocating it to the granting of credit or investment in the financial market, so that the fact that Nombre46090 is engaged in financial intermediation does not denature its condition as a non-profit Cooperative, and the resolutions being challenged do not demonstrate situations different from those provided for in the rule that authorizes Savings and Loan Cooperatives to carry out financial activity without for-profit purposes, to the point of justifying a profit that is ultimately the taxable event of the business license tax. Regarding national case law, the representation of Nombre46090 indicates that the jurisprudential line has been that cooperatives are not subject to the payment of the business license as long as the activity they carry out falls within their purpose, according to their nature, for which the provisions of their bylaws must be observed, so that if the activity goes beyond the general objectives of the organization, it will then be a for-profit activity, and in that case, a license is required to carry out the activity in the canton. That in judgment No. 268-2003 of 15:45 hours, the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo refers to the non-subjection of cooperatives to the payment of the cited tax, and for its part, Sala I in vote 26-97 of 14:15 hours, April 16, 1997, noted that the concept of for-profit gain is antithetical to cooperative principles and therefore cannot coexist jointly, so it is impossible for a cooperative to carry out a for-profit activity. It explains that what the Courts have said is that a Cooperative is obligated to pay the business license tax when it transgresses its articles of incorporation and implements practices alien to the purposes for which it was created, and in this same sense, the Procuraduría General de la República in opinions No. C-205-99 and No. 237-2007, which indicate that cooperatives will not enjoy the privilege only when they step outside the scope of their creation, and in that percentage not covered by the cooperative association law, they must declare the corresponding aliquot portion, and then it will be up to each municipality, based on accounting records, to determine if they are engaging in commercial activities with non-member third parties and with for-profit intent; however, in the case of COOPENAE, the Municipalidad de Nombre265 starts from the assumption that \"financial intermediation\" is in itself for-profit without demonstrating that the cooperative actually profited from the intermediation, the sole scenario in which the cooperative would be a taxable person subject to the tax obligation. The Municipalidad de Nombre265 opposes the lawsuit, claiming lack of right. It maintains that Nombre46090. is subject to the corresponding municipal business license tax, given that Article 170 of the Constitution provides for the second-degree autonomy of local governments, a principle from which the taxing or tributary power of the municipalities to defray the cost of public services through collected revenues is derived. It states that in this sense, through Law No. 8821, Ley de Licencias y Patentes of the Municipalidad de Nombre265, it is clear that the legal procedures necessary for this to effectively manifest in taxes that adhere to the constitutional principles proper to this matter have been complied with; such that the Asamblea Legislativa merely issues a \"typically tutelary authorization\" when it exercises the power conferred by Subsection 13) of Article 121 of the Political Constitution, insofar as the local governments are responsible for the exercise of creating, modifying, or extinguishing municipal taxes, as well as the power to exempt them. It cites Article 4 of the Código Municipal, from which it infers that each local government is free to define the limits of its own taxing power, so the municipal tax imposition systems for their specific collection and application are highly varied. It elaborates on the powers of the Municipality in its capacity as the Tax Administration. In this regard, it states that Article 99 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios defines the concept of Tax Administration, indicating that it is the public unit that administers and oversees the tax, which clearly agrees with Article 4 of the Código Municipal. It considers it clear that Municipalities are the Tax Administration, a condition that makes them entitled to all the competencies and attributes established generally in the law for such purposes, primarily covered in the Código Municipal, and after this general body, the respective municipal business license law and the provisions contained in the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, in accordance with Article 9.1 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. It requests consideration that in determining public powers, the matter is reserved to law (Article 59 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública), and regarding local governments, they have constitutional support—Articles 169 and 170 of the Political Constitution—with tax matters being an essential part of governmental autonomy. It continues that within these powers intrinsic to Municipalities, there are state and municipal policies through which exceptions to the application of taxes are created, such as tax exemptions or the granting of various types of subsidies, access to official credit with reduced interest rates and deferral periods for amortization, customs franchises, among others. It states that in the case at hand, exemptions seek to prevent the birth of the tax obligation, known as \"total exemption,\" or in other cases reduce the amount of the tax, also called \"partial exemption,\" through bonuses or deductions under certain factual situations included in the scope of the taxable event whose realization does not give rise to the tax payment obligation, constituting an exception to the normal effects. The tax exemption rule has the force of neutralizing the effects of the one that creates it, since it affects either the subjective or objective element of the taxable event, or the elements for quantifying the tax, that is, in the tax base or the tax rate. The classical theory of exemption defines exemptions as a legal dispensation from the tax obligation, that is, as a derogation from the obligation to pay, despite the taxable event occurring, which is the effect they produce, namely the exception from the obligation to contribute to public expenses for certain subjects (subjective exemption) or for certain situations or facts (objective exemption). Thus, tax exemption occurs when a rule provides that in those cases expressly foreseen by it, despite the taxable event occurring, its main effect does not develop: the duty to pay the tax or tax obligation. From this exposition, it concludes that by its nature, ordinary Law is the source that creates the tax and its regime of exemptions, whose conceptual framework is defined in the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, Article 62, which in this regard provides that it is through Law that the specifications and scope of each exemption must be determined. It furthers that in local tax matters, Article 79 of the Código Municipal creates a tax on the exercise of any for-profit activity (taxable event), and considers that its text clearly reveals who the taxable person subject to the tax obligation is and what the taxable event is, so that anyone interested in carrying out for-profit activities is obliged to obtain the license and pay its respective amount. This license consists of the prior permit or authorization by local governments to carry out the economic activity. It explains that, specifically in the canton of Pérez Zeledón, Law No. 8821, Ley de Regulación de Licencias y Patentes de Pérez Zeledón, develops everything related to the business license tax for commercial activities operated within the territorial jurisdiction of this canton, taxing in numeral 45, subsections b) and d), in relation to 2 subsection 1), all for-profit activities related to banking and credit, stating: \"Article 45. The following persons are taxpayers of the business license tax of the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón: (...) b) According to the nature of the activity they carry out: they are all those who carry out productive activities, regardless of whether or not these are considered or declared by themselves as eminently for-profit. (…) d) According to the sector to which they belong: they are those who participate in the primary sector as well as those in the secondary and tertiary sectors of the canton's economy, and who are also included in any of the industrial, commercial, or services sectors pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 of this Law: \"Article 2: Preliminary Definitions: For the purposes of this Law, the following concepts shall be understood: (...) b) Commercial sector: comprises the group of persons who carry out productive activities consisting of the transfer or disposal, by any title authorized in the legal system, of all kinds of goods and services. It also includes acts of valuation of economic goods according to supply and demand, such as representative offices, agencies, affiliates, branches, and in general, everything that involves market transactions of any type, banks and financial institutions, banking and exchange houses, stock brokerage and similar, and insurance institutions...\" It argues that cooperatives, as forms of social and economic organization, seek an equitable distribution of income and the greater well-being of their members, a vital goal in a Social State of Law such as ours; and that it is for this reason that Article 64 of the Political Constitution states: \"The State shall promote the creation of cooperatives, as a means to facilitate better living conditions for workers,\" and numeral one of the Cooperative Associations Law and Creation of the Instituto Nacional de Fomento Cooperativo, No. 4179 of August 22, 1968, and its amendments, reiterates: \"The constitution and operation of cooperative associations are declared to be of public convenience, utility, and social interest, as one of the most effective means for the economic, social, cultural, and democratic development of the country's inhabitants.\" Cooperativism, it continues, is based on three fundamental values: equality, freedom, and solidarity; the foregoing is important because the legal regulation of cooperatives, as is logical, has its axis in those values and principles. It argues that the situation of cooperatives has currently changed, and competition is a key factor for their growth; indeed, we see how today cooperatives created for a certain guild accept clients who do not necessarily belong to that guild, that there is an economic reality that should not be ignored, the existence of a legal fiction that generally does not respond to reality, since it is normal for cooperatives to seek to achieve their social goals through the generation of profit, with which the well-being and growth of their members are promoted and capital is increased. It maintains that in the present case, we must carefully analyze the principle of economic reality, a principle that furthermore brings us even closer to the reality of that canton, by means of which the fair collection of taxes is made, and uncertain parameters are set aside; it is clear that there are gains in cooperatives, financial turnovers that benefit their members. It points out that cooperatives, as businesses that they are, must generate economic surpluses to make their development and the achievement of their purposes viable and sustainable, especially that of providing more and better services to their members and increasing, if possible, the number of them; just like any company, cooperatives can have profits or losses, and although in their genesis cooperatives do not have their reason for being in obtaining benefits or profits, currently all, or the vast majority, and specifically Nombre46090, have as their main objective to increase the profitability of their members' activities, because by the nature of their main activity, focusing on savings and credit, it generates wealth that culminates in the distribution of dividends among its members. Thus, if in reality that gain—economic profitability—is being produced, we are indeed in the presence of the taxable event required by Article 79 of the Código Municipal and Law 8821, Ley de Licencias y Patentes of Nombre265. It also denies that a legal exemption exists in favor of cooperatives. It reiterates that the creation of legal tax exemptions or the release from the obligation to pay the tax is granted only by the express will of the legislature, and in that sense, in the Cooperative Associations Law, there is no provision whatsoever that exempts cooperatives from paying the municipal business license tax. From the citation of Articles 6 and 78 of the law on that matter, it infers that part of the benefits created by the legislature in favor of cooperatives is the exemption from municipal taxes for acts of formation, registration, and amendment of bylaws, as well as exempting them from other legal requirements for their operation. It considers that there is no exemption whatsoever from the payment of the business license tax; moreover, the legislature provided for exemption from the Income Tax, and at that opportunity, had it wished, it clearly would have provided the exemption in their favor for the municipal business license tax; one cannot deduce from where the letter of the law does not provide the existence of a tax exemption not included by the legislature. It believes that a different interpretation would violate the principle of tax legality contained in numeral 5, subsection b) of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, illegally creating an exemption not provided for in the law and also infringing Article 6 of that same regulatory body, which prohibits filling a legal gap through analogy for the creation of exemptions.\n\nTHIRD. PROVEN FACTS: The comparison of the available evidentiary elements allows this Nombre14216 to consider the following facts as accredited, relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding and the manner in which it is resolved:\n\n1.- That the Cooperativa Nacional de Educadores R.L. (COOPENAE R.L.), is a savings and credit cooperative association, constituted under the regulatory framework of the Cooperative Associations Law, Law No.\n\n4179 of August 22, 1968, and its amendments, which is registered with the Department of Social Organizations of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security, through resolution number C-0148 of November 18, 1966. (Not disputed, certifications visible at folios 1 to 5 of the judicial file).\n\n2.- That Nombre46090 is authorized to engage in the activity of financial intermediation supervised by the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras. (Not disputed, certifications visible at folios 7 to 17 of the judicial file).\n\n3.- That on April 28, 2011, Nombre46090 filed a municipal license application with the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, for the premises bearing its name to carry out the activity of \"Savings and Credit.\" (Folio 002 of the administrative file).\n\n4.- That through administrative resolution number RES 0645-11-SPL issued at 2:56 p.m. on June 27, 2011, the Coordinación del Sub Proceso de Licencias y Patentes of the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón ordered that the requested license be conditioned, among other aspects, on the payment of the patent tax (impuesto de patentes) in an initial quarterly amount of one hundred six thousand four hundred thirty-two colones starting from the third quarter of 2010, such that prior to the granting, it had to pay four hundred fifty-two thousand one hundred sixty-six colones for this concept plus nine thousand forty-three colones for the National Parks stamp (timbre de Parques Nacionales), as the initial payment of that tax. (Folios 031 to 034 of the administrative file).\n\n5.- That Nombre46090 complied with the payment referenced in resolution 0645-11-SPL on August 5, 2011, wherefore, through the granting act number ADJ-26325-SPL of August 10, 2011, the requested license was granted to it. (Folios 039 and 040 of the administrative file).\n\n6.- That through a brief filed on March 26, two thousand twelve, the representative of the Cooperativa Nacional de Educadores R.L. requested the Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón to declare the exemption (exoneración) in favor of its represented entity with respect to the payment of the municipal patent tax for the branch it has open in that jurisdiction, given that it is a non-profit Cooperative and does not carry out the taxable event (hecho generador). (Not disputed, folios 1 to 5 of the municipal appeal file).\n\n7.- That during Extraordinary Session N° 039-12, Article 2, subsection 20, held on June 14, two thousand twelve, the Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón resolved: \"Deny the petition of Nombre46090 since they are not included among the entities (sic) or activities that can be exempted according to Law 8821 on Licenses and Patents.\" (folio 13 of the municipal appeal file).\n\n8.- That the Agreement described in the previous fact was notified to the aggrieved entity via fax on June 29, two thousand twelve, and through a brief filed on July 9, two thousand twelve, the legal representative of the Cooperative filed a motion for reconsideration with subsidiary appeal (recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio) against it. (folios 13 and 14 to 25 of the municipal appeal file).\n\n9.- That by means of the Agreement adopted in Extraordinary Session N° 066-13, article 2, subsection 16, held on July 11, two thousand thirteen, the Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón resolved to declare without merit the motion for reconsideration filed by the legal representative of Nombre46090 because the appeal action had not been filed within the terms indicated in article 156 of the Código Municipal, and it admitted the appeal to the Sección Tercera of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. (folios 98 to 102 of the municipal appeal file).\n\n10.- That through resolution Nº 566-2014 issued at 9:55 a.m. on November 20, 2014, by the Sección Tercera of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, in its capacity as Biphasic Improper Hierarchical Superior (Jerarca Impropio Bifásico), it resolved the following: \"POR TANTO. The Agreement adopted in Extraordinary Session N° 066-13, article 2, subsection 16, held on July 11, two thousand thirteen, is upheld. The administrative channel (vía administrativa) is deemed exhausted. Given the manner in which it is resolved and consequently, as it is unnecessary, no ruling is issued regarding the appeal filed against the Agreement of the municipal council N° 2, subsection 20 of Extraordinary Session n° 39-12 of June 14, two thousand twelve.\" (Not disputed, folios 042 to 053 of the administrative file).\n\nFOURTH. LEGALITY OF THE CONTENT OF THE CHALLENGED ACTS. As can be deduced from the background information developed supra, the object of this proceeding is to seek the declaration of absolute nullity of resolutions N°566-2014 of 9:45 a.m. on November 20, 2014, of the Sección Tercera of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, in its capacity as biphasic improper hierarchical superior of the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, which confirmed the actions of the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón through the agreement adopted by the Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón in Extraordinary Session N° 066-13, Article 2), Subsection 16) of July 11, 2013. Said resolutions declared inadmissible the exemption request filed by Nombre46090 regarding the payment of the municipal patent tax for the branch it has open in the Cantón de Pérez Zeledón, claiming to be a non-profit Cooperative and not to carry out the taxable event. Furthermore, based on the potential acceptance of those claims, it requested the reimbursement of the sums paid and the jurisdictional declaration that the plaintiff is an entity exempt from the tax in question. Initially, and without prejudice to the additional reasons that will be set forth in separate considerandos, the majority of this Panel fully agrees with the ruling issued by the Sección Tercera of this Tribunal in the resolution whose nullity is requested here, therefore, since the reproach made affects only its content and reasoning, it deems inadmissible the nullity argument asserted by the plaintiff. In this regard, in a matter that bears identity with the one before us, as it involved an exemption request for the same tax filed by another Cooperative against the same Municipalidad sued here, it was stated that: \"I.- Former article 79 of the Código Municipal -now article 88 by virtue of its numbering having been moved by canon 1 of the Law for the Strengthening of the Municipal Police N° 9542 of 04/23/2018- states: 'To engage in any lucrative activity (actividad lucrativa), interested parties must have the respective municipal license, which will be obtained through the payment of a tax. Said tax shall be paid for the entire time the lucrative activity has been carried out or for the time the license has been held, even if the activity has not been performed.' As can be clearly seen, the parameter for obtaining a municipal license for any natural or legal person in a given canton is that they carry out a lucrative activity, a term which, according to the definition of the Real Academia Española, means 'that produces utility and profit.' / II.- Although it is true that in accordance with numeral 2 of Law N° 6756, Comprehensive Reform of the Cooperative Associations Law of 05/05/1982, it is provided that: 'Cooperatives are voluntary associations of persons and not of capital, with full legal personality, of indefinite duration and limited liability, in which individuals organize themselves democratically to satisfy their needs and promote their economic and social improvement, as a means of overcoming their human condition and their individual formation, and in which the motive of work and production, distribution and consumption, is service and not profit (lucro),' it is also a reality that, apart from the social function assigned by the Constitutional Convention itself in article 64 of our Carta Política and by the legislator in the aforementioned article 2, there is another task of said groups that is entirely linked to commercial activity with third parties and not arising from their social function, without this undermining the purposes for which they were created. In this sense, both doctrine and jurisprudence have expressly recognized the realization of economic -lucrative- ends by cooperatives. Thus, for example, the scholar Nombre153996, when analyzing the possibility of cooperatives carrying out activities outside their corresponding social purpose, has indicated: 'the cooperative is by its nature an enterprise because it exercises an organized economic activity for the purpose of production and exchange of goods and services, they are organizations that do not perform charitable works, but rather, like any economic enterprise, tend to achieve properly economic ends, in an economic manner' (Nombre153996, Tratado de Derecho Cooperativo. Editora Zeus, Córdoba, 1974, p. 196). For its part, the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, in its vote number 5487-94 of 7:03 p.m. on September 21, 1994, for what is of interest here, reasoned: 'By virtue of the foregoing, if the appellant Cooperative intends to develop a commercial activity for the sale of food to the public, which is completely different from the purpose for which it was constituted, it is evident that it must request the corresponding commercial license from the Municipalidad, insofar as the sale of food to the public is not the reason for which the Cooperative was constituted.' Moreover, the exemption from the patent tax could not be pigeonholed into article 6 of Law N° 6756, because literally, and for what is relevant, it has been regulated: 'Cooperative associations shall enjoy the following privileges: a) Exemption from payment of the territorial tax for a term of ten years from the date of their legal registration. b) Exemption from all taxes or fees (tasa), national or municipal, on the acts of formation, registration, modification of bylaws and other legal requirements for their operation' [emphasis supplied]. The undersigned, unlike my colleagues of Nombre14216, does not perceive within the cited legal text regarding exemptions that the express release of cooperatives from the payment of commercial patents has been regulated, as was done with other taxes. When the rule says that it is exempt from all taxes or fees -national or municipal-, this judge understands that it is referring to the assumptions related to the structure of the cooperative -formation, registration, modification, or operation proper to the organization-, but not to the benefit -exemption- of not having to obtain a commercial license for the development of any lawful and lucrative activity, much less to its correlative payment of the patent tax. / III.- Now then, as explained in resolution number 111-2016 of the Sección Tercera of this Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, acting as improper hierarchical superior, and which has precisely been challenged in this litis, the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Pérez Zeledón N° 8821 of 05/03/2010, developed everything related to the patent tax on commercial activities exploited within said canton, taxing -among others- productive activities related to the industrial and commercial sector, excepting those expressly indicated in that regulatory body. In that sense, numeral 2 defined: 'a) Productive activity (actividad productiva): is that which, being inserted within the canton's economy, contributes to the production or transformation, both qualitative and quantitative, of inputs or raw materials into goods and/or services; likewise, it implies the transformation of some simpler goods and services into more complex ones, as well as the simple provision of services, directly or indirectly, to the consumer, adding a value estimable in terms of production and development in the economic, social, and human spheres in general. b) Lucrative activity (actividad lucrativa): is that which translates into a utility, gain, or benefit of a patrimonial or economic nature, derived from the exercise of a productive activity inserted in any of the fields of human activity. / g) Municipal license (licencia municipal): is the authorization that the Municipalidad grants to a natural or legal person, of a private or public nature, for the exercise of a productive activity in the cantón of Pérez Zeledón. / i) Municipal patent license (patente municipal): is the tax to which the person who has been granted a license for the exercise of a productive activity is obligated. / l) Commercial sector: comprises the group of people who develop productive activities consisting of the movement or disposal under any title authorized by the legal system of all kinds of goods and services. Furthermore, it includes acts of valuation of economic goods according to supply and demand, such as representative offices, agencies, affiliates, branches, and, in general, everything involving market transactions of any type, banks and financial establishments, banking and exchange houses, stock brokerage and similar, and insurance institutions. m) Industrial sector: refers to the group of people who develop productive activities consisting of material operations executed to extract, transform, or manufacture one or more products. It includes the processing of agricultural products and the mechanical, chemical, or any other transformation of organic or inorganic substances into new or different products, through mechanized processes or of any other type, carried out both in factories and in homes. It includes both the creation of new products and the transformation of existing ones, as well as repair, maintenance, and reconditioning workshops for these products and the machines or equipment used to produce them.' In turn, ordinal 43 of said Law established the taxable event, specifying: 'Natural or legal persons engaged in the exercise of productive activities of any type whatsoever in the cantón of Pérez Zeledón shall obtain the respective license and shall pay, to the Municipalidad, the patent tax that empowers them to develop these activities. The Municipalidad shall set the patent tax rate in accordance with this Law.' And canon 45 defined the taxpayers, stating for what is of interest here: 'The following persons are taxpayers of the patent tax of the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón: (...) b) According to the nature of the activity they develop: they are all those who carry out productive activities, regardless of whether or not these are considered or declared by themselves as eminently lucrative.' Finally, article 64 regulated which activities are exempt from the payment of the patent tax, with said rule stating: 'The following productive or organizational activities of the canton are exempt from the payment of the patent tax of the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, totally or partially in the proportion indicated herein: a) Political parties, unions, professional associations and their affiliates, foundations constituted and duly registered in accordance with Law N° 5338, of August 28, 1973, non-governmental organizations that work exclusively for the achievement of public purposes, solidarity associations (asociaciones solidaristas) constituted and duly registered in accordance with Law N° 6970, of November 7, 1984, rural aqueduct administration associations, sports associations constituted and duly registered in accordance with Law N° 5418, of November 20, 1973, community development associations constituted and duly registered in accordance with Law N° 3859, of April 7, 1967, and, in general, all public enterprises of the State as well as the organizations and institutions of the State, both centralized and decentralized. Productive activities of consumption, generation, or distribution of goods and services that they carry out or that they have concessioned or authorized to be exploited by third parties shall not be exempt.' As can be seen from the foregoing transcribed provisions, even in the regulation specific to the cantón of Nombre265, the legislator did not order the exemption of cooperatives from the patent tax when they carry out lucrative activities within its jurisdiction. / IV.- Having examined the foregoing regulatory review, it is this judge's criterion that if the legislator had had the clear and conclusive intention of exempting cooperatives from the payment of commercial patents, it would have done so expressly, but neither in Law N° 6756, Comprehensive Reform of the Cooperative Associations Law of 05/05/1982, nor in the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Nombre265 N° 8821 of 05/03/2010, was this so enshrined, therefore one cannot distinguish where the law does not, for that would be akin to creating a tax exemption not included by the legislator, running the risk of violating the principle of tax legality contained in numeral 5 subsection b) of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios. Furthermore, the principle of economic reality cannot be lost sight of, especially regarding an entity of such scale in the national economic market as the one bringing this litis, it being easily perceivable and identifiable as a public and notorious fact that the Cooperativa de Productores de Leche Dos Pinos Responsabilidad Limitada has a commercial line of business aimed at profit to obtain a gain; thus, even when the law provides that cooperatives do not have lucrative purposes, if in reality the plaintiff cooperative is generating returns, we are indeed in the presence of the taxable event that article 79 -now 88- of the Código Municipal and the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Nombre265 N° 8821 require, and therefore, it must obtain a patent license for the lawful exercise of its lucrative activity.\" (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Sétima, number 061-2018 of one o'clock in the afternoon on August sixteen, two thousand eighteen). As can be appreciated, the cited vote, which was then a minority opinion but which this Panel's majority shares, bears identity with the matter now before us, insofar as it addresses an exemption request from a Cooperative Association brought against the Municipalidad de Nombre265 for the same substantive reasons that were asserted here, therefore, mutatis mutandis solely with respect to the identification of the resolution that exhausted the administrative channel, the majority invokes such reasoning for the purpose of declaring the lack of right of the claim.\n\nFIFTH. THE EXEMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS LAW DO NOT AFFECT THE TAX CREATED BY LAW 8821: Although the reasons given in the preceding considerando are sufficient to declare the inadmissibility of the claim, this Tribunal also considers, in this section unanimously, that from a harmonious and analogical combination of the legal norms applicable to the case, the plaintiff here is not covered by the exemption that was established at the time in the Cooperative Associations Law N° 4179 of August 22, 1968, amended by article 1 of Law N° 6756 of May 5, 1982, whose article 6 subsection b) provides: \"Cooperative associations shall enjoy the following privileges: (...) b) Exemption from all taxes or fees, national or municipal, on the acts of formation, registration, modification of bylaws and other legal requirements for their operation.\" Note that, although it is true that in the foregoing legal precept, cooperative associations were indeed exempted from all types of taxes, including that of municipal patents, it must be emphasized that subsequent to the enactment of said legal body, the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Nombre265 was created, Law N° 8821 of May 3, 2010, which, among other scopes, regulated the Patent Tax for that Canton, defined the taxable event of the tax, and which are the obligated subjects, under the terms that will be analyzed in the following considerando. The foregoing is relevant insofar as article 50 of the Law Regulating Existing Exemptions, Derogations, and Exceptions, Law N° 7293 of March 31, 1992, clearly establishes: \"Article 63 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios is amended to read: 'Article 63-Limit of application: Even if there is an express provision of the tax law, the exemption does not extend to taxes established after its creation.'\" Thus, from a simple reading, review, and comparison of the dates of creation and effectiveness of the laws concerning us, both the one containing the exemption from all types of taxes for cooperative associations, Law N° 6756 of May 5, 1982, which amended the Cooperative Associations Law N° 4179 of August 22, 1968, and the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Nombre265, Law N° 8821 of May 3, 2010, it is deduced with clear clarity that the exemptions established in the former do not affect the later law. The Sala Primera of the Corte Suprema de Justicia has maintained the thesis now put forth by this Tribunal, and precisely when analyzing the same law 8821 of Nombre265, in vote number 001970-F-S1-2020 of 11:00 a.m. on June 3, 2020, in a case where another cooperative group claimed from the same Local Government sued here the exemption from the patent tax, indicated, for what is of interest here, the following: \"(…) IV.- For this Nombre14216, it is undeniable that the existence of the IPM created by Law 8821 of May 3, 2010, is a tax subsequent to the generic exemption created by mandate 6 subsection b) of Law 4179. While Law 4179 in the recently cited rule establishes the exemption from all taxes or fees, national or municipal, on the acts of formation, registration, modification of bylaws and other requirements for its operation, which clearly includes the payment of patents, as it is an inescapable requirement for the operation of a cooperative that carries out a productive activity, it is clear that, pursuant to the amendment made via canon 50 of Law 7293 to precept 63 of the CNPT, tax exemptions cannot be extended to taxes created subsequently. Thus, it is undeniable that the productive activities generated by the plaintiff are subject to the payment of the IPM of the sued Ayuntamiento, in accordance with ordinal 45 of Law 8821, because it is a municipal tax created after the exemption rule established in Article 6 subsection of Law 4179 (…)\". Note then that the Cassation Chamber of this Jurisdiction itself has already ruled on the non-affectation of the patent tax created by Law 8821 by exemptions that had been agreed upon by prior law, including those established in the Cooperative Associations Law and its amendments, such that the claim that the plaintiff be declared exempt from this tax cannot be granted either, because, under the amendment provided in numeral 50 of Law N° 7293 to precept 63 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, tax exemptions cannot be extended to taxes created subsequently.\n\nSIXTH. THE TAXABLE EVENT OF THE TAX CREATED IN LAW 8821 DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THE EXERCISE OF A LUCRATIVE ACTIVITY. As was referenced in the corresponding section, the central axis upon which the plaintiff's entire theory of the case revolves consists of the fact that it has no profit purpose, and that for this reason it does not execute the taxable event, and consequently, it would be an entity not subject to the municipal patent tax. Also unanimously, this Collegiate Body concludes that all of this argumentation becomes irrelevant insofar as the specific law of the Cantón de Pérez Zeledón that supports the actions of the sued Administration fixes the taxable event and the condition of an obligated subject without taking into consideration the lucrative purpose. It is worthwhile to specify then, that as a derivation of article 121 subsection 13) of the Constitución Política, article 88 (formerly article 79) of the Código Municipal provides that, to engage in any lucrative activity in the cantons, interested parties must have the respective municipal license, which will be obtained through the payment of a tax. Said tax shall be paid for the entire time the lucrative activity is carried out or for the time the license has been held, even if the activity has not been performed. Based on this rule, it is feasible to distinguish between the license, which responds to the administrative act that enables the individual to exercise a certain activity of a lucrative nature, and the payment of the corresponding tax for it, which responds, precisely, to the Tax being discussed. More precisely, note that the tax administration capacity of local entities has a constitutional basis, specifically in subsection 13 of article 121, insofar as it provides that it corresponds exclusively to the Asamblea Legislativa to authorize municipal taxes; one of which would be the Patent Tax, regularly linked to the issuance of a municipal license, both aspects which, although distinct, are closely linked as explained by the Sala Constitucional: \"IV.- On the distinction between license and patent, and the charging of the patent in the challenged Law.- The license is a permit to develop a certain activity and the patent is a tax for the development of said activity. In municipal matters, normally the administrative acts of granting a license and charging a patent go together, with one exception, precisely when it concerns lucrative activities developed by a concessionaire.\" (Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, vote 6731–2016). Thus, regarding the specific topic of interest, article 88 of the Código Municipal provides that: \"To engage in any lucrative activity, interested parties must have the respective municipal license, which will be obtained through the payment of a tax. Said tax shall be paid for the entire time the lucrative activity has been carried out or for the time the license has been held, even if the activity has not been performed. / In cases of public calamity or national or cantonal emergency, declared by the central Government, the municipalidades and intendencias may suspend, at the request of the licensees, the validity of the granted licenses temporarily for a maximum period of up to twelve months. During the suspension period, as the commercial activity is not being developed, the corresponding tax referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not be charged. / Any license suspension request must be made by the licensee in writing and indicate a means for receiving future notifications. The licensee may request the reactivation of the license at any time, whereupon the charging of the corresponding tax shall resume. For the effective reactivation of the license, the interested party must have paid any outstanding amounts related to this tax or be up to date if paying off debts through a payment arrangement (arreglo de pago). / Once twelve months have elapsed from the suspension of the license and having been duly notified by the municipal tax administrations, the licensees shall have a maximum period of ten business days to request the reactivation of their license. If they fail to do so within said period, the granted license shall be considered automatically revoked.\" (Thus amended by article 19 of the Law to support local taxpayers and reinforce the financial management of municipalities in the face of the national emergency due to the covid-19 pandemic, N° 9848 of May 20, 2020). It is clear then, that as a tax matter, although exercised by the Local Government, it is built upon and nourished by the general principles thereof, among which the principle of Legal Reservation (Reserva Legal) stands out due to its relevance to the topic at hand, stipulated and regulated in numerals 121.13 of the Carta Magna and 5 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, which in that order state: \"Article 121.- In addition to the other powers conferred upon it by this Constitution, it corresponds exclusively to the Asamblea Legislativa: (…) 13) To establish national taxes and contributions and to authorize municipal ones (…)\" and \"Article 5.- Matters reserved exclusively to the law. / In tax matters, only the law can: / a) Create, modify, or abolish taxes; define the taxable event of the tax relationship; establish the tax rates and their calculation bases; and indicate the taxable person; / b) Grant exemptions, reductions, or benefits; / c) Classify infractions and establish the respective penalties; / d) Establish privileges, preferences, and guarantees for tax credits; and / e) Regulate the modes of extinguishment of tax credits by means other than payment. / Regarding fees, when the law does not prohibit it, its Regulation may vary its amount so that they fulfill their purpose in a more suitable manner, after intervention of the body legally charged with regulating the rates for public services.\"\n\nTherefore, the creation of the tax that is the subject of this proceeding, the taxable event that constitutes it, as well as the basis for calculating its amount, are aspects that, among others, must be pre-established in laws in the formal and material sense, issued by the Legislative Assembly, for each specific Canton, given the territorial nature of municipal competencies. Ergo, for each Canton the regulation is distinct and specific, and although they may bear similarities, nothing prevents the constituent elements of the tax from being legislated differently from one Canton to another. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber has explained that: “(...) the laws that regulate this type of tax may contain different taxable events and even tax productive activity, among other assumptions. This conclusion derives from the correct interpretation of the rules that regulate the institution of this tax in the Código Municipal, which in its article 98, provides that \\\"no one may open establishments dedicated to profit-making activities (actividades lucrativas) or engage in street vending, without the respective municipal license\\\" (underlining is not from the original), and in article 96 ibid., which indicates that all profit-making activities, subject to license, must pay the patent tax (impuesto de patente). From those texts it is clear that profit-making activities are legally susceptible to being taxed with a tribute or patent tax, leaving the structuring of the elements of the tax obligation to the discretion of the municipal administration. (...)” (Voto 2197-92 of May 10, 1993) (emphasis supplied by this Court). Under the referred parameters, in the analysis of the specific case we find that the tax whose non-subjection the plaintiff alleges, was created by Law number 8821 of May three, two thousand ten, called “Regulación de Licencias y Patentes de Nombre265,” which, in what is pertinent to its elements, provided: “ARTICLE 39.- Establishment of the tax In accordance with the provisions of article 79 of the Código Municipal, the municipal patent tax is created in the canton of Pérez Zeledón, so that the administered parties contribute jointly to the development of the canton and at the same time can exercise their rights over productive activities, enshrined in the municipal licenses granted to them. / ARTICLE 40.- Obligation to pay the tax derived from the existence of a license. The productive activities carried out in the canton of Pérez Zeledón may only be performed through municipal authorization by means of a license. For the exercise of this license, the administered party must pay to the Municipality a patent tax. (…) ELEMENTS OF THE PATENT TAX. ARTICLE 43.- Taxable event. Natural or legal persons engaged in the exercise of productive activities of any type whatsoever, in the canton of Pérez Zeledón, must obtain the respective license and shall pay, to the Municipality, the patent tax that empowers them to develop these activities. The Municipality shall set the patent tax rate in accordance with this Law. / ARTICLE 44.- Passive subjects. The passive subjects of the patent tax of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón are both the taxpayers and the declarants thereof. A declarant of the tax is any administered party who exercises a productive activity and is the transferee of a municipal license and who, by reason thereof, is obliged to render, in accordance with this Law, a sworn declaration of their gross income, in order to determine the amount of tax to be charged to them. A taxpayer of the tax is he who, being a declarant, must also contribute the payment of a certain sum of money as the amount of their tax obligation. / ARTICLE 45.- Taxpayers. The following persons are taxpayers of the patent tax of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón: a) In accordance with the nature of the persons: all natural and legal persons, with the sole exceptions expressly provided by this Law. b) In accordance with the nature of the activity they carry out: it is all those who carry out productive activities, regardless of whether or not these are considered or declared by themselves as eminently profit-making.” (the bold and underlines do not correspond to the original, they have been supplied by this Court). It is then absolutely clear that the plaintiff's entire thesis that it has no profit-making purpose (finalidad de lucro) and that its activity is not profit-making, is irrelevant for the specific case of Nombre265, which is the only one examined here. The legislator, at the instance of the administration itself, chose for this Canton to dispense with the concept of profit for the purposes of determining the taxable event and the passive subject. For the former, it was defined as the exercise of any type of productive activity within the Canton, and regarding the latter, it emphasized that all those who carry out productive activities would be subject to the tax, regardless of whether or not these are considered or declared by themselves as eminently profit-making. For greater abundance and clarity, the same law defined what should be understood as productive activity and what as profit-making activity, completely separating them, and making it clear that they are different activities, providing to that effect: “ARTICLE 2.-Preliminary definitions. For the purposes of this Law, the following concepts shall be understood: a) Productive activity: is that which, being inserted within the canton's economy, contributes to the production or transformation, both qualitative and quantitative, of inputs or raw materials into goods and/or services; likewise, it implies the transformation of some simpler goods and services into more complex ones, as well as the simple provision of services, directly or indirectly, to the consumer, thereby adding an estimable value in terms of production and development in the economic, social, and human spheres in general. b) Profit-making activity: is that which translates into a utility, gain, or benefit of a patrimonial or economic nature, derived from the exercise of a productive activity inserted in any of the fields of human activity.” In accordance with all the foregoing, it is undeniable that the administrative action whose nullity is sought is in accordance with the law, that the plaintiff is subject to the patent tax in the Canton of Nombre265, and that it does not have an exemption that benefits it, whereby the claim must be declared without merit in all its aspects.\n\nSEVENTH. DEFENSES: The defendant Municipality raised the defense of lack of right. In the preceding Considerandos, the Court has detailed the reasons why it estimates that the challenged acts are in accordance with the law, that no nullity defect affects them, that the plaintiff Cooperative is subject to the payment of the Patent Tax of Nombre265, and that the exemption it sought does not apply in its favor. As a result of the foregoing, the plaintiff would also not have the right to the refund of the amounts it has already paid for that concept. The corollary of all the foregoing is that the raised defense must be accepted, declaring the claim without merit in all its aspects.\n\nEIGHTH. COSTS: In accordance with numeral 193 of the CPCA, procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by the very fact of losing. The waiver of this condemnation is only viable when there exists, in the Court's judgment, sufficient reason to litigate or else, when the judgment is issued by virtue of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In the instant case, we find no reason that allows the cited exceptions to be applied, which is why the costs—procedural and personal—shall be borne by the plaintiff.\n\nNINTH. NOTE BY JUDGE IRÍAS OBANDO. With the greatest respect and consideration to my colleagues of the Chamber, I dissent from them solely on the reasons given in Considerando Fourth of this judgment. Specifically, I do not concur that the defendant Administration or the Court may, under the principle of economic reality, determine a priori that a specific Cooperative Association exercises a profit-making activity subject to the patent tax, when that is the taxable event. In my opinion, a determination in that sense, insofar as it distances itself from the nature granted by law to such entities, is only possible as the result of a procedure with guarantees, with the burden of proof on the respective Tax Administration, in accordance with the provisions of numerals 140) of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios and article 317) of the Código Procesal Civil in force on the date of filing of this claim, or of 41.1 of the Code of that matter in force, all in relation to 220) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. However, I fully agree with and subscribe to all the considerations developed in the other considerandos, it being the case that, in particular, those detailed in Considerandos Fifth and Sixth are sufficient in themselves to sustain this ruling, for which I concur with my affirmative vote to everything decided regarding accepting the defense of lack of right, declaring the claim without merit in all its aspects, and condemning the plaintiff to pay costs.\n\nTHEREFORE:\n\nThe defense of lack of right raised by the defendant is accepted. The claim is declared without merit in all its aspects. The plaintiff is condemned to pay both costs of this action. Gustavo Irías Obando, Nombre125810, Nombre457.\n\n \n \n\n- Verification Code -\n???????????????\nCQQGJLTEKUO61\n\n \n\nDocument signed by:\n\nGUSTAVO IRIAS OBANDO, DECISIVE JUDGE\nNombre457, DECISIVE JUDGE\nNombre125810, DECISIVE JUDGE\n\n \n\nEXP: 15-002285-1027-CAGoicoechea, Dirección7876, 50 meters west of BNCR, opposite Dirección18098. Telephones: 2545-0107 (EXT 01-2707) or 2545-0099 (EXT 01-2599). Fax: 2241-5664 and 2545-0006. Email: ...0\n\nThat in order to fulfill these purposes, article 14 of its bylaws authorizes it to raise funds from its members, grant them credit, carry out transactions with securities, establish investment funds, etc.; an activity that the law classifies as non-profit and according to legal opinion C-199-96 of the Procuraduría General de la República, Nombre46090, by virtue of the activity it carries out, is in a special subjection relationship and that when they raise money from their own members, for the purpose of placing it in the financial market as loans or investments, it is for the purpose of fostering in their members the habit of saving and personal credit, without this distorting their condition as non-profit entities and that they are supervised by INFOCOOP or SUGEF in each one’s respective scope, provided, however, that they do not stray from financial intermediation (intermediación financiera), since if they were to do so they would be sanctioned. In addition to the cited opinion, the representative of Nombre46090 points out that article 6 of Ley No. 7391 indicates that Cooperativas de Ahorro y Crédito do not lose their condition as promoters and drivers of the social development of their members, by the mere fact of engaging in financial intermediation. Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff concludes that the Municipalidad and the Sección Tercera misinterpret its situation by considering that because it engages in financial intermediation, for that simple fact it makes a profit and therefore should not enjoy the exemption granted to all cooperatives without any distinction by the Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas. However, Ley No. 7391 indicates that the activity of financial intermediation carried out by this type of cooperative (de Ahorro y Crédito), does not have profit as its purpose and its article 2) expressly states that acts of financial intermediation are cooperative acts and subject to cooperative law and supplementarily to commercial law, insofar as it is compatible with their special nature, and the activity of financial intermediation, according to article 3 of that Law, is defined as the raising of money from their own members, for the purpose of allocating it to the granting of loans or investment in the financial market, so that the fact that Nombre46090 engages in financial intermediation does not thereby distort its condition as a non-profit Cooperative, and the resolutions being challenged do not prove situations different from those provided for in the rule that authorizes Cooperativas de Ahorro y Préstamo to carry out financial activity without profit, to the point of justifying a profit which is ultimately the taxable event (hecho generador) of the patent tax (impuesto de patente). Regarding national case law, the representative of Nombre46090 indicates that the jurisprudential line has been that cooperatives are not subject to payment of the patent tax as long as the activity they carry out falls within their corporate purpose, according to their nature, for which the provisions of their bylaws must be observed, so that if the activity goes beyond the general objectives of the organization, it will then be a for-profit activity and in that case they do need a patent to carry out the activity in the canton. That in judgment No. 268-2003 of 3:45 p.m., the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo refers to the non-subjection of cooperatives to the payment of the cited tax and, for its part, the Sala I in vote 26-97 of 2:15 p.m. on April 16, 1997, indicated that the concept of profit is antithetical to that of cooperativism and therefore they cannot coexist jointly, such that it is impossible for a cooperative to develop a lucrative activity. It explains that what the Tribunales have said is that a Cooperative is obliged to pay the patent tax when it contravenes its articles of incorporation and implements practices that are alien to the purposes for which it was created, and in this same sense the Procuraduría General de la República in legal opinions No. C-205-99 and No. 237-2007, in which it is indicated that cooperatives will not enjoy the privilege only when they depart from their scope of creation and in that percentage not covered by the cooperative associations law is where it must declare the corresponding aliquot portion, and then it will be up to each municipalidad, based on the accounting records, to determine whether they are developing commercial activities with non-member third parties and with a profit motive, however, that in the case of COOPENAE, the Municipalidad de Nombre265 proceeds from the assumption that \"financial intermediation\" is in itself lucrative but without proving that the cooperative actually made a profit through intermediation, the only scenario in which the cooperative would be a taxable person (sujeto pasivo) of the tax obligation.\n\nLa Municipalidad de Nombre265 opposes the claim, alleging lack of right. It maintains that Nombre46090 is subject to the corresponding municipal patent tax (tributo de patente municipal), given that article 170 of the Constitution establishes the second-degree autonomy of local governments, a principle from which derives the taxing or tributary power of municipalidades to defray the cost of public services by means of the revenues collected. It argues that in this sense, through Ley Nº8821, Ley de Licencias y Patentes de la Municipalidad de Nombre265, it can be inferred that the necessary legal procedures have been fulfilled so that it is effectively manifested in taxes that are subject to the constitutional principles proper to that matter; in such a way that the Asamblea Legislativa merely issues a \"typically tutelary authorization\" when it exercises the power conferred by Subsection 13) of article 121 of the Constitución Política, whereas the exercise of the creation, modification, or extinction of municipal taxes, as well as the power to exempt from taxes, corresponds to local governments. It cites article 4 of the Código Municipal, from which it deduces that each local government is free to define the limits of its own taxing power, so that the systems of municipal tax imposition for their concrete collection and application are of the most varied kinds. It elaborates an argument regarding the power of the Municipalidad in its condition as Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria). In this regard, it states that article 99 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios defines the concept of Tax Administration, pointing out that it is the public unit that administers and oversees the tax, which clearly agrees with article 4 of the Código Municipal. It considers that it is clear that the Municipalidades are a Tax Administration, a condition that makes it deserving of all the powers and attributes established generally in the law for such purposes, comprised primarily in the Código Municipal and after this general body, the respective municipal patent law and the provisions contained in the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, in accordance with the provisions of article 9.1 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. It asks that it be taken into consideration that in the determination of powers of authority, the matter is reserved to law (article 59 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública), and in the case of local governments, they have constitutional support—articles 169 and 170 of the Constitución Política—being an essential part of governmental autonomy, that referred to tax matters. Within those powers intrinsic to Municipalidades, it continues, there exist state and municipal policies, through which exceptions to the application of taxes are created, such as tax exemptions (exoneraciones fiscales) or the granting of subsidies of various kinds, access to official credits with reduced interest rates and dilatory amortization periods, customs franchises, among others. It affirms that in the case before us, exemptions (exoneraciones) seek to prevent the birth of the tax obligation, known as \"total exemption\" or in other cases to reduce the amount of the tax, also called \"partial exemption\", through rebates or deductions in the face of certain factual situations included in the scope of the taxable event, the realization of which does not give rise to the payment tax obligation, constituting an exception to normal effects. The tax exemption rule has the force to paralyze the effects of the rule that creates it, because it affects either the subjective or objective element of the taxable event, or the quantification elements of the tax, that is, the tax base (base imponible) or the tax rate. The classic theory of exemption defines exemptions as a legal dispensation from the tax obligation, that is, as a derogation of the payment obligation, despite the taxable event occurring, which is the effect they produce, that is, the exception from the obligation to contribute to public expenses for certain subjects (subjective exemption), or for certain situations or facts (objective exemption). Thus, tax exemption takes place when a rule provides that in those situations expressly provided for by it, despite the taxable event occurring, its main effect does not develop: the duty to pay the tax or tax obligation. From that exposition, it concludes that by its nature, ordinary Law is the creative source of the tax and of its exemption regime, whose conceptual framework is defined in the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, article 62, which in this regard provides that it is through Law that the specifications and scope of each exemption must be determined. It adds that in local tax matters, article 79 of the Código Municipal creates a tax on the exercise of any lucrative activity (taxable event), and considers that from its text clearly emerges who the taxable person (sujeto pasivo) of the tax obligation is and what the taxable event is, such that anyone interested in exercising lucrative activities is obliged to obtain the license (licencia) and pay its respective amount. That license consists of the permit or prior authorization by local governments for the exercise of the economic activity. It explains that, properly in the canton of Pérez Zeledón, Ley No. 8821, Ley de Regulación de Licencias y Patentes de Pérez Zeledón, develops everything related to the patent tax for commercial activities that are exploited within the territorial circumscription of this canton, taxing in numeral 45, subsections b) and d), in relation to 2 subsection 1), all lucrative activities related to banking and credit, by stating: \"Artículo 45. The following persons are taxpayers of the patent tax (impuesto de patentes) of the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón: (…) b) According to the nature of the activity they develop: they are all those who carry out productive activities regardless of whether or not these are considered or declared by themselves as eminently lucrative. (…) d) According to the sector to which they belong: they are both those who participate in the primary sector and those in the secondary and tertiary sector of the canton's economy and are also included in any of the industrial, commercial or service sectors as provided in article 2 of this Law: 'Artículo 2: Preliminary definitions: For the purposes of this Law, the following concepts shall be understood: (...) b) Commercial sector: comprises the set of persons who develop productive activities consisting of the transfer or disposal by any title authorized in the legal system of all kinds of goods and services. It also includes acts of valuation of economic goods according to supply and demand, such as representative offices, agencies, filiales, sucursales and, in general, everything that involves market transactions of any type, banks and financial establishments, banking and exchange houses, stock brokerage and the like, and insurance institutions...'\" It argues that cooperatives as forms of social and economic organization seek an equitable distribution of income and the greater well-being of their members, a vital goal in a Social Rule of Law State like ours; and that it is for this reason that article 64 of the Constitución Política expresses: \"The State shall encourage the creation of cooperatives, as a means of facilitating better living conditions for workers\" and the first numeral of the Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas y Creación del Instituto Nacional de Fomento Cooperativo, No. 4179 of August 22, 1968 and its amendments, reiterates: \"The constitution and operation of cooperative associations is declared of public convenience and utility and of social interest, as it is one of the most effective means for the economic, social, cultural and democratic development of the country's inhabitants.\" Cooperativism, it continues to argue, is based on three fundamental values: equality, freedom and solidarity; the foregoing is important because the legal regulation on cooperatives, logically, has its axis in those values and principles. It argues that currently the situation of cooperatives has changed, and competition is a key factor for their growth; we even see how today cooperatives created for a certain guild accept clients who do not necessarily correspond to said guild, that there is an economic reality that must not be set aside, the existence of a legal fiction that generally does not correspond to reality, since it is normal for cooperatives to seek to achieve their social goals through the generation of profit, with which the well-being, growth of their members and increase of capital are promoted. It maintains that in the present case, we must carefully analyze the principle of economic reality (principio de realidad económica), a principle which furthermore brings us even closer to the reality of that canton, through which the fair collection of taxes is made, and uncertain parameters are set aside; it is clear that there are earnings in cooperatives, financial turnovers that benefit their members. It points out that cooperatives, as they are businesses, must generate economic surplus to make their development and the achievement of their purposes viable and sustainable, especially that of providing more and better services to their members and increasing if possible the number of them; just like any business, cooperatives can have benefits or losses, although in their genesis cooperatives do not have their reason for being in obtaining benefits or gains, currently all or most of them, and in the specific case Nombre46090, have as their main object to increase the profitability of their members' activities, because due to the nature of their main activity, by focusing on savings and credit, it is a generator of wealth that culminates in the distribution of dividends among their members; such being the case, and if in reality that gain—economic profitability—is being produced, we are indeed in the presence of the taxable event that article 79 of the Código Municipal and Ley 8821, Ley de Licencias y Patentes de Nombre265 require. It also denies that there exists a legal exemption in favor of cooperatives. It reiterates that the creation of legal exemptions from taxes or the release from the obligation to pay the tax is granted only by the express will of the legislator, and in that sense, in the Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas, there is no precept whatsoever that exempts cooperatives from the payment of the tax for the concept of municipal patent (patente municipal). From the citation of articles 6 and 78 of the law on that matter, it deduces that part of the benefits created by the legislator in favor of cooperatives is the exemption from municipal taxes for the acts of formation, registration and modification of bylaws, and also that it exempts them from other legal requirements for their operation. It considers that there is no exemption whatsoever from the payment of the patent tax; moreover, the legislator provided for the exemption from the Income Tax, and on that occasion, had it wished to do so, it clearly would have provided for the exemption in their favor with respect to the municipal patent tax (impuesto de patente municipal); the existence of a tax exemption not included by the legislator cannot be inferred from where the letter of the law does not provide. It deems that a different interpretation would violate the principle of tax legality contained in numeral 5 subsection b) of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, illegally creating an exemption not provided for in the law and also transgressing article 6 of that same regulatory body, which prohibits filling the legal vacuum through analogy for the creation of exemptions.\n\n**THIRD. PROVEN FACTS:** The comparison of the available evidentiary elements allows this Nombre14216 to consider the following facts of relevance to the object of the proceeding and to the manner in which it is resolved as proven:\n\n**1.-** That Cooperativa Nacional de Educadores R.L. (COOPENAE R.L.), is a savings and credit cooperative association, constituted under the regulatory framework of the Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas Ley No. 4179 of August 22, 1968 and its amendments, which is registered before the Departamento de Organizaciones Sociales del Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, by resolution number C-0148 of November 18, 1966. (Not controverted, certifications visible on folios 1 to 5 of the judicial file).\n\n**2.-** That Nombre46090 is authorized to carry out the activity of financial intermediation (intermediación financiera) supervised by the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras. (Not controverted, certifications visible on folios 7 to 17 of the judicial file).\n\n**3.-** That on April 28, 2011, Nombre46090 submitted to the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón a request for a municipal license, for the premises that bore its name to develop the activity of “Ahorro y Crédito”. (Folio 002 of the administrative file).\n\n**4.-** That by administrative resolution number RES 0645-11-SPL of 2:56 p.m. on June 27, 2011, the Coordinación del Sub Proceso de Licencias y Patentes de la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón ordered that the requested license be conditioned, among other aspects, on the payment of the patent tax (impuesto de patentes) for an initial quarterly amount of one hundred six thousand four hundred thirty-two colones starting from the third quarter of 2010, for which reason, prior to the award, it had to pay four hundred fifty-two thousand one hundred sixty-six colones for that concept plus nine thousand forty-three colones for Parques Nacionales stamps, as an initial payment of that tax. (Folios 031 to 034 of the administrative file).\n\n**5.-** That Nombre46090 complied with the payment referred to in resolution 0645-11-SPL on August 5, 2011, for which reason, by award act number ADJ-26325-SPL of August 10, 2011, the requested license was granted. (Folios 039 and 040 of the administrative file).\n\n**6.-** That by means of a brief filed on March 26, two thousand twelve, the representative of Cooperativa Nacional de Educadores R.L. requested the Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón to declare the exemption in favor of its represented party with respect to the payment of the municipal patent tax (impuesto de patente municipal) for the branch it has open in that jurisdiction, because it is a non-profit Cooperative and does not carry out the taxable event (hecho generador). (Not controverted, folios 1 to 5 of the municipal appeal file).\n\n**7.-** That during Extraordinary Session N° 039-12, Article 2, subsection 20 held on June 14, two thousand twelve, the Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón ordered: *“Deny the petition of Nombre46090 since they are not included among the entities (sic) or activities that can be exempted according to Ley 8821 de Licencias y Patentes.”* (folio 13 of the municipal appeal file).\n\n**8.-** That the Agreement described in the previous fact was notified to the aggrieved entity by fax, on June 29, two thousand twelve and, by means of a brief filed on July 9, two thousand twelve, the representative of the Cooperative files a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria) with subsidiary appeal (apelación en subsidio) against it. (folios 13 and 14 to 25 of the municipal appeal file).\n\n**9.-** That by means of an Agreement taken in Extraordinary Session N° 066-13, article 2, subsection 16, held on July 11, two thousand thirteen, the Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón resolved to declare without merit the motion for reconsideration filed by the representative of Nombre46090 because the appeal action had not been filed in the terms indicated in article 156 of the Código Municipal, and admitted the appeal before the Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. (folio 98 to 102 of the municipal appeal file).\n\n**10.-** That by means of resolution Nº 566-2014 of 9:55 a.m. on November 20, 2014, of the Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, in its capacity as Jerarca Impropio Bifásico, ordered the following: *“POR TANTO. The Agreement taken in Extraordinary Session N° 066-13, article 2, subsection 16, held on July 11, two thousand thirteen is confirmed. The administrative channel is deemed exhausted. Due to the manner in which it is resolved and consequently, because it is unnecessary, a ruling regarding the appeal filed against the Concejo Municipal Agreement No. 2, subsection 20 of Extraordinary Session No. 39-12 of June 14, two thousand twelve is omitted.”* (Not controverted, folios 042 to 053 of the administrative file).\n\n**FOURTH. LEGALITY OF THE CONTENT OF THE CHALLENGED ACTS.** As can be inferred from the background developed above, the object of this proceeding is the declaration of absolute nullity of resolutions N°566-2014 of 09:45 a.m. on November 20, 2014, of the Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, in its condition as improper biphasic superior officer (jerarca impropio bifásico) of the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, which confirmed what was carried out by the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, through the agreement taken by the Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón in Extraordinary Session N° 066-13, Article 2), Subsection 16) of July 11, 2013. Said resolutions declared inadmissible the exemption request filed by Nombre46090 regarding the payment of the municipal patent tax (impuesto de patente municipal) for the branch it has open in the Cantón de Pérez Zeledón, alleging it is a non-profit Cooperative and does not carry out the taxable event (hecho generador). Furthermore, upon the potential acceptance of those claims, it requested the reimbursement of the sums paid and the jurisdictional declaration that the plaintiff is a subject exempt from the tax in question. From the outset, and without prejudice to the additional reasons that will be set forth in separate recitals, the majority of this Panel fully agrees with what was ruled by the Sección Tercera of this Tribunal in the resolution whose nullity is requested here, so that, since the reproach formulated affects only its content and reasoning, it deems the nullity allegation maintained by the plaintiff inadmissible. In this regard, in a matter that has identity with the one before us since it involved a request for exemption from the same tax filed by another Cooperative against the same Municipalidad sued here, it was noted that: *“I.- The former article 79 of the Código Municipal—today article 88 by virtue of its numbering having been shifted by canon 1 of the Ley de Fortalecimiento de la Policía Municipal N° 9542 of 04/23/2018—states: 'To carry out any lucrative activity, interested parties must have the respective municipal license, which will be obtained through the payment of a tax. Said tax shall be paid throughout the time during which the lucrative activity has been carried out or for the time during which the license has been held, even if the activity has not been carried out.' As can be clearly seen, the parameter for obtaining a municipal license for any natural or legal person, in a specific canton, is that they carry out a lucrative activity, a term which according to the definition of the Real Academia Española, means 'that produces utility and gain.' / II.- Although certainly in accordance with numeral 2 of Ley N° 6756, Reforma Integral a Ley de Asociaciones Cooperativas of 05/05/1982 it is provided that: 'Cooperatives are voluntary associations of persons and not of capital, with full legal personality, of indefinite duration and limited liability, in which individuals organize democratically in order to satisfy their needs and promote their economic and social improvement, as a means of overcoming their human condition and their individual formation, and in which the motive of work and production, of distribution and consumption, is service and not profit,' it is also a reality that, apart from the social function assigned by the Constituent itself in article 64 of our Carta Política and by the legislator in article 2 cited above, there is another task of said groupings that is entirely linked to commercial activity with third persons and not arising from their social function, without this thereby distorting the purposes for which they were created. In this sense, both legal doctrine and jurisprudence have expressly recognized the performance of economic—lucrative—purposes by cooperatives. Thus, for example, the legal scholar Nombre153996, when analyzing the possibility that cooperatives carry out activities alien to the social purpose that corresponds to them, has indicated: 'the cooperative is by its nature a business because it carries out an organized economic activity for the purposes of production and exchange of goods and services, which are organizations that do not perform charitable or benevolent works, but rather, like any economic business, tend to achieve properly economic ends, in an economic manner' (Nombre153996, Tratado de Derecho Cooperativo. Editora Zeus, Córdoba, 1974, p. 196).\n\nFor its part, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in its vote number 5487-94 of 7:03 p.m. on September 21, 1994, for what is of interest here, reasoned: \"By virtue of the foregoing, if the appellant Cooperative intends to develop a commercial activity for the sale of food to the public, which is completely different from the purpose for which it was established, it is evident that it must indeed request the corresponding commercial license from the Municipality, insofar as the sale of food to the public is not the reason for which the Cooperative was established.\" And the exemption from the patent tax (impuesto de patentes) cannot be pigeonholed into Article 6 of Law No. 6756 either, because in its literal text and for what is of interest, it has been regulated: \"Cooperative associations shall enjoy the following privileges: a) Exemption from the payment of territorial tax for a term of ten years from the date of their legal registration. b) Exemption from all national or municipal taxes or fees on the acts of formation, registration, amendment of bylaws, and other legal requirements for their operation\" [emphasis supplied]. The undersigned, unlike my colleagues of Nombre14216, does not discern within the cited legal text referring to exemptions that an express exemption for cooperatives from the payment of a commercial patent has been regulated, as was done with other taxes. By stating that the rule exempts from all national or municipal taxes or fees, this judge understands that it is referring to the assumptions related to the structure of the cooperative—formation, registration, amendment, or the organization's own operation—and not to the benefit—exemption—of not having to obtain a commercial license for the development of any lawful and lucrative activity, much less to its correlative payment of the patent tax. / III.- Now then, as was explained in resolution number 111-2016 of the Third Section of this Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Court, acting as an improper hierarch, and which has precisely been challenged in this litigation, the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Pérez Zeledón No. 8821 of 05/03/2010, developed everything related to the patent tax on commercial activities exploited within said canton, taxing—among others—productive activities related to the industrial and commercial sector, excepting those expressly indicated in that regulatory body. In that sense, in numeral 2 it defined: \"a) Productive activity: is that which, being inserted within the canton's economy, contributes to the production or transformation, both qualitative and quantitative, of inputs or raw materials into goods and/or services; likewise, it implies the transformation of some simpler goods and services into more complex ones, as well as the simple provision of services, directly or indirectly, to the consumer, adding with all this an estimable value in terms of production and development in the economic, social, and human spheres in general. b) Lucrative activity: is that which translates into a utility, gain, or benefit of a patrimonial or economic type, derived from the exercise of a productive activity inserted in any of the fields of human activity. / g) Municipal license: is the authorization that the Municipality grants to a natural or legal person, of a private or public nature, for the exercise of a productive activity in the canton of Pérez Zeledón. / i) Municipal patent: is the tax to which the person who has been granted a license for the exercise of a productive activity is obligated. / l) Commercial sector: comprises the group of persons who develop productive activities consisting of the transfer or alienation by any title authorized in the legal system of all kinds of goods and services. Additionally, it includes the acts of valuation of economic goods, according to supply and demand, such as representative offices, agencies, affiliates, branches and, in general, everything involving market transactions of any type, banks and financial establishments, banking and exchange houses, stock brokerage and similar, and insurance institutions. m) Industrial sector: refers to the group of persons who develop productive activities consisting of material operations executed to extract, transform, or manufacture one or several products. It includes the processing of agricultural products and the mechanical, chemical, or any other means of transformation of organic or inorganic substances into new or different products, through mechanized processes or of any other type, carried out both in factories and in homes. It includes both the creation of new products and the transformation of already existing ones, as well as the repair, maintenance, and reconditioning workshops for these products and for the machines or equipment used to produce them.\" In turn, ordinal 43 of said Law established the taxable event (hecho generador), specifying: \"Natural or legal persons engaged in the exercise of productive activities of any type whatsoever, in the canton of Pérez Zeledón, must obtain the respective license and shall pay, to the Municipality, the patent tax that empowers them to develop these activities. The Municipality shall set the patent tax rate in accordance with this Law.\" And in canon 45 it defined the taxpayers, pointing out for what is of interest here: \"The following persons are taxpayers of the patent tax of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón: (…) b) In accordance with the nature of the activity they develop: they are all those who carry out productive activities, regardless of whether or not these are considered or declared by themselves as eminently lucrative.\" Finally, in article 64 it was regulated which activities are exempt from the payment of the patent tax, with said norm stating: \"The following productive or organizational activities of the canton are exempt from the payment of the patent tax of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón, totally or partially in the proportion indicated herein: a) Political parties, unions, professional associations and their affiliates, foundations duly constituted and registered in accordance with Law No. 5338, of August 28, 1973, non-governmental organizations that work exclusively in the pursuit of public purposes, solidarity associations (asociaciones solidaristas) duly constituted and registered in accordance with Law No. 6970, of November 7, 1984, rural aqueduct administration associations, sports associations duly constituted and registered in accordance with Law No. 5418, of November 20, 1973, community development associations duly constituted and registered in accordance with Law No. 3859, of April 7, 1967 and, in general, all public companies of the State as well as State organizations and institutions, both centralized and decentralized. The productive activities of consumption, generation, or distribution of goods and services that they carry out or that they have concessioned or authorized to be exploited by third parties shall not be exempt.\" As can be seen from the preceding transcribed provisions, neither in the specific regulation of the canton of Nombre265 did the legislator provide for exempting cooperatives from the patent tax, when they carry out lucrative activities within its jurisdiction. / IV.- Once the previous normative account has been examined, it is the criterion of this judge that if the legislator had had the clear and reliable intention of exempting cooperatives from the payment of a commercial patent, it would have done so expressly, but neither in Law No. 6756, Comprehensive Reform of the Law on Cooperative Associations of 05/05/1982, nor in the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Nombre265 No. 8821 of 05/03/2010, was it so set forth; therefore, one cannot distinguish where the law does not, as it would be like creating a tax exemption not included by the legislator, running the risk of violating the principle of tax legality (principio de legalidad tributaria) contained in numeral 5, subsection b) of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios). Furthermore, the principle of economic reality (principio de realidad económica) cannot be lost sight of, especially when dealing with an entity of such magnitude in the national economic market as the one acting in this litigation, it being easy to perceive and identify as a public and notorious fact that the Cooperativa de Productores de Leche Dos Pinos Responsabilidad Limitada has a commercial line of business aimed at profit to obtain a gain; this being the case, even if the law provides that cooperatives do not have lucrative purposes, if in reality the plaintiff cooperative is generating returns, we are indeed in the presence of the taxable event (hecho generador) required by Article 79—nowadays Article 88—of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal) and the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Nombre265 No. 8821, and therefore, it must obtain a patent for the lawful exercise of its lucrative activity.\" (Contentious Administrative Court, Seventh Section, number 061-2018 of one o'clock in the afternoon on August sixteenth, two thousand eighteen). As can be seen, the cited vote, which was then a minority but which this Integration shares in the majority, bears identity with the matter now before us, insofar as it hears a request for exemption from a Cooperative Association filed against the Municipality of Nombre265 for the same substantive reasons that were argued here, therefore, mutatis mutandis only with regard to the identification of the resolution that exhausted the administrative remedy, by majority this reasoning is invoked in order to declare the lack of right of the claim.\n\nFIFTH. THE EXEMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE LAW OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS DO NOT AFFECT THE TAX CREATED BY LAW 8821: Although the reasons given in the preceding recital are sufficient to declare the inadmissibility of the claim, this Court also considers, in this section unanimously, that from a harmonious and analogical combination of the legal norms applicable to the case, the plaintiff here is not covered within the exemption that at one time had been provided in the Law of Cooperative Associations No. 4179 of August 22, 1968, amended 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 the acts of formation, registration, amendment of bylaws, and other legal requirements for their operation.\" See 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 subsequent to the promulgation of said legal body, the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Nombre265, Law No. 8821 of May 3, 2010, was created, which among other scopes regulated the Patent Tax for that Canton, defined the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tribute, and which are the obligated subjects, in the terms that will be analyzed in the following recital. The foregoing is relevant insofar as Article 50 of the Regulatory Law of Existing Exemptions, Derogations, and Exceptions, Law No. 7293 of March 31, 1992, clearly establishes: \"Article 63 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) is amended to read: 'Article 63-Limit of application: Even if there is an express provision of the tax law, the exemption does not extend to tributes established after its creation'.\" Thus, from the simple reading, review, and comparison of the dates of creation and effectiveness of the laws that concern us, both the one that contained the exemption from all types of taxes for cooperative associations, Law No. 6756 of May 5, 1982, which amended the Law of Cooperative Associations No. 4179 of August 22, 1968, and the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Nombre265, Law No. 8821 of May 3, 2010, it is deduced with crystal clarity that the exemptions set in the former do not affect the later law. The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has maintained the thesis that this Court now expounds, and precisely analyzing the same law 8821 of Nombre265, in vote number 001970-F-S1-2020 of 11:00 a.m. on June 3, 2020, in a case where another cooperative group claimed from the same Local Government sued here the exemption from the patent tax, it indicated, for what is of interest here, the following: \"(...) IV.- For this Nombre14216 it is undeniable that the existence of the IPM created by Law 8821 of May 3, 2010, is a tribute subsequent to the generic exemption created by mandate 6, subsection b) of Law 4179. Although Law 4179 in the recently cited norm establishes the exemption from all national or municipal taxes or fees on the acts of formation, registration, amendment of bylaws, and other requirements for its operation, which clearly includes the payment of patents, as it is an unavoidable requirement for the operation of a cooperative that carries out a productive activity, it is clear that, pursuant to the reform made through canon 50 of Law 7293 to precept 63 of the CNPT, tax exemptions cannot be extended to tributes that are created subsequently. This being the case, it is unobjectionable that the productive activities generated by the plaintiff are subject to the payment of the IPM of the sued Town Council, pursuant to ordinal 45 of Law 8821, as it is a municipal tax created subsequent to the exemptive norm established in Article 6, subsection of Law 4179 (...).\" Note then that the Cassation Chamber itself of this Jurisdiction has already ruled on the non-affectation of the patent tax created by Law 8821 from the exemptions that may have been agreed by prior law, including those established in the Law of Cooperative Associations and its amendments, therefore, the claim that the plaintiff be declared exempt from said tribute cannot be accepted either, since, under the protection of the reform provided in numeral 50 of Law No. 7293 to precept 63 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), tax exemptions cannot be extended to taxes that are created subsequently.\n\nSIXTH. THE TAXABLE EVENT (HECHO GENERADOR) OF THE TRIBUTE CREATED IN LAW 8821 DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THE EXERCISE OF LUCRATIVE ACTIVITY. As was referenced in the corresponding section, the central axis on which the entire theory of the case of the plaintiff revolves consists in that it does not have profit-making purposes, and that for this reason, it does not exercise the taxable event (hecho generador), and consequently, it would be an entity not subject to the municipal patent tribute. Also unanimously, this Panel infers that all this argumentation becomes inconsequential insofar as the specific law of the Canton of Pérez Zeledón that serves as support for the actions of the sued Administration sets the taxable event (hecho generador) and the condition of an obligated subject without considering the lucrative purpose. It is worth specifying then, that as a derivation of Article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution, Article 88 (formerly Article 79) of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal) provides that, to exercise any lucrative activity in the cantons, the interested parties must have the respective municipal license, which will be obtained through the payment of a tax. Said tax shall be paid during the entire time the lucrative activity is exercised or for the time the license has been held, even if the activity has not been carried out. From that norm, it is feasible to distinguish between the license, which responds to the administrative act that enables the individual to exercise a certain activity of a lucrative nature, and the payment of the corresponding tribute for it, which responds, precisely, to the Tax being discussed. More precisely, note that the tax administration capacity of local entities has a constitutional basis, specifically in subsection 13 of Article 121, insofar as it provides that it corresponds exclusively to the Legislative Assembly to authorize municipal taxes; one of which would be the Patent Tax, regularly linked to the issuance of a municipal license, both aspects that, although distinct, keep a close link as explained by the Constitutional Chamber: \"IV.- On the distinction between license and patent, and the charging of patent in the challenged Law.- The license is a permit to develop a determined activity and the patent is a tax for the development of said activity. In municipal matters, normally the administrative acts of granting a license and charging a patent go together, with one exception, precisely when it concerns lucrative activities developed by a concessionaire.\" (Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, vote 6731–2016). Thus, regarding the specific topic of interest, Article 88 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal) provides that: \"To exercise any lucrative activity, the interested parties must have the respective municipal license, which will be obtained through the payment of a tax. Said tax shall be paid during the entire time the lucrative activity has been exercised or for the time the license has been held, even if the activity has not been carried out. / In cases of public calamity or national or cantonal emergency, declared by the central Government, the municipalities and intendancies may suspend, at the request of the licensees, temporarily the validity of the licenses granted for a maximum period of up to twelve months. During the suspension period, as the commercial activity is not being developed, the corresponding tax referred to in the previous paragraph will not be charged. / Any license suspension request must be made by the licensee in writing and indicate a means to receive future notifications. The licensee may request the reactivation of the license at any time, with which the charging of the corresponding tax will resume. For the effective reactivation of the license, the interested party must have paid any outstanding balance related to this tax or be up to date in case they are paying their outstanding balances through a payment arrangement arrangement. / Once twelve months from the suspension of the license have elapsed and duly notified by the municipal tax administrations, the licensees shall have a maximum period of ten business days to request the reactivation of their license. If they fail to do so within said period, the granted license shall be deemed automatically revoked.\" (As amended by Article 19 of the Law to support the local taxpayer and reinforce the financial management of municipalities, in light of the national emergency due to the covid-19 pandemic, No. 9848 of May 20, 2020). It is crystal clear then, that as a tax matter, although exercised by the Local Government, it is built upon and nourished by the general principles of that field, among which stands out for its relevance to the topic at hand, the Principle of Legal Reserve (Principio de Reserva Legal), stipulated and regulated in numerals 121.13 of the Magna Carta and 5 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), which in that order state: \"Article 121.- In addition to the other powers conferred by this Constitution, it corresponds exclusively to the Legislative Assembly: (...) 13) To establish national taxes and contributions and authorize municipal ones (...)\" and \"Article 5.- Matters reserved to the law. / In tax matters, only the law may: / a) Create, modify, or suppress tributes; define the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship; establish the rates of the tributes and their bases of calculation; and indicate the passive subject; / b) Grant exemptions, reductions, or benefits; / c) Typify infractions and establish the respective sanctions; / d) Establish privileges, preferences, and guarantees for tax credits; and / e) Regulate the modes of extinction of tax credits by means other than payment. / In relation to fees, when the law does not prohibit it, its Regulation may vary its amount so that they fulfill their purpose in a more suitable manner, after intervention by the body that by law is in charge of regulating the tariffs of public services.\" Therefore, the creation of the tribute subject to this process, the taxable event (hecho generador) that constitutes it, as well as the basis of calculation of its amount, are aspects that, among others, must be predetermined in laws in a formal and material sense, emanating from the Legislative Assembly, for each specific Canton, given the territorial nature of municipal competencies. Ergo, for each Canton, the regulation is different and specific, and although they may keep similarities, nothing prevents the constitutive elements of the tribute from being legislated differently from one Canton to another. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber has explained that: \"(...) the laws that regulate this type of tax may contain different taxable events and even tax the productive activity, among other presuppositions. This conclusion is derived from the correct interpretation of the norms that regulate the institution of this tribute in the Municipal Code, which in its article 98, provides that 'no one may open establishments dedicated to lucrative activities or trade as a street vendor, without the respective municipal license' (the underline is not from the original), and in article 96 idem, which indicates that all lucrative activities, subject to a license, must pay the patent tax. From those texts, it follows that lucrative activities are legally susceptible to being charged with a tribute or patent tax, leaving to the criterion of the municipal administration the structuring of the elements of the tax obligation. (...)\" (Vote 2197-92 of May 10, 1993) (emphasis supplied by this Court). Under the referred parameters, in the analysis of the specific case, we find that the tribute whose non-subjection is alleged by the plaintiff was created by Law number 8821 of May three, two thousand ten, called \"Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Nombre265\", which in what is pertinent to its elements provided: \"ARTICLE 39.- Establishment of the tax. In accordance with what is established in Article 79 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), the municipal patent tax is created in the canton of Pérez Zeledón, so that the administered contribute jointly to the development of the canton and at the same time can exercise their rights over productive activities, consecrated in the municipal licenses granted to them. / ARTICLE 40.- Obligation to pay the tax derived from the existence of a license. Productive activities developed in the canton of Pérez Zeledón may only be carried out through municipal authorization by means of a license. For the exercise of this license, the administered must pay a patent tax to the Municipality. (…) ELEMENTS OF THE PATENT TAX. ARTICLE 43.- Taxable event (Hecho generador). Natural or legal persons engaged in the exercise of productive activities of any type whatsoever, in the canton of Pérez Zeledón, must obtain the respective license and shall pay, to the Municipality, the patent tax that empowers them to develop these activities. The Municipality shall set the patent tax rate in accordance with this Law. / ARTICLE 44.- Passive subjects. The passive subjects of the patent tax of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón are both the taxpayers and the declarants of this. Any administered who exercises a productive activity and is a transferee of a municipal license and who, by reason of this, is obligated to file, in accordance with this Law, a sworn declaration of their gross income, in order to determine the amount of tax to be charged to them, is a declarant of the tax. A taxpayer of the tax is one who, being a declarant, must also contribute with the payment of a determined sum of money as the amount of their tax obligation. / ARTICLE 45.- Taxpayers. The following persons are taxpayers of the patent tax of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón: a) In accordance with the nature of the persons: all natural and legal persons, with the sole exceptions expressly provided by this Law. b) In accordance with the nature of the activity they develop: they are all those who carry out productive activities, regardless of whether or not these are considered or declared by themselves as eminently lucrative.\" (the bold and underlines do not correspond to the original; they have been supplied by this Court). It is therefore absolutely crystal clear that the entire thesis of the plaintiff regarding it not having a profit-making purpose and that its activity is not lucrative is irrelevant for the specific case of Nombre265, which is the only one examined here. The legislator, at the behest of the administration itself, chose for this Canton to dispense with the concept of profit for the purposes of determining the taxable event (hecho generador) and the passive subject. For the first, it defined that it would be the exercise of any type of productive activity within the Canton, and regarding the second, it emphasized that all those who carry out productive activities would be subject to the tribute, regardless of whether or not these are considered or declared by themselves as eminently lucrative. For greater abundance and clarity, the same law defined what should be understood by productive activity and what by lucrative activity, completely separating them and making it clear that they are different activities, providing to that effect that: \"ARTICLE 2.-Preliminary Definitions. For the purposes of this Law, the following concepts shall be understood: a) Productive activity: is that which, being inserted within the canton's economy, contributes to the production or transformation, both qualitative and quantitative, of inputs or raw materials into goods and/or services; likewise, it implies the transformation of some simpler goods and services into more complex ones, as well as the simple provision of services, directly or indirectly, to the consumer, adding with all this an estimable value in terms of production and development in the economic, social, and human spheres in general.\n\nb) Lucrative activity: it is that which results in a utility, gain, or benefit of a patrimonial or economic nature, derived from carrying out a productive activity within any field of human activity.” In light of the foregoing, it is undeniable that the administrative action whose nullity is sought is in accordance with the law, that the plaintiff is subject to the patent tax in the Canton of Nombre265  and that it does not benefit from any exoneration, and therefore the claim must be dismissed in its entirety.

SEVENTH. EXCEPTIONS: The defendant Municipality raised the exception of lack of right. In the preceding Considerandos, the Court has detailed the reasons why it considers that the challenged acts are in accordance with the law, are not affected by any defect of nullity, that the plaintiff Cooperative is subject to the payment of the Patent Tax of Nombre265, and that the exoneration it sought does not apply in its favor. As a result of the foregoing, the plaintiff would also not have the right to a refund of the amounts it has already paid under that concept. The corollary of all the foregoing is that the defense raised must be upheld, dismissing the claim in its entirety.

EIGHTH. COSTS: In accordance with numeral 193 of the CPCA, procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue of being so. A dispensation from this condemnation is only viable when there was, in the Court's judgment, sufficient reason to litigate or when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In this case, we find no reason whatsoever to apply the cited exceptions, and therefore the costs—procedural and personal—shall be borne by the plaintiff.

NINTH. NOTE FROM JUDGE IRÍAS OBANDO. With the greatest respect and consideration for my colleagues on the Panel, I dissent from them solely regarding the reasons given in Considerando Cuarto of this judgment. Specifically, I do not concur that the defendant Administration or the Court may, under the principle of economic reality, determine a priori that a given Cooperative Association engages in a lucrative activity subject to the patent tax, when that is the taxable event (hecho generador). In my opinion, such a determination, insofar as it departs from the nature granted by law to such entities, is only possible as a result of a procedure with guarantees, with the burden of proof on the respective Tax Administration, in accordance with the provisions of numerals 140) of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures and Article 317) of the Civil Procedure Code in force at the date of filing of this claim, or 41.1 of the Code on that matter currently in force, all  in relation to 220) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code. However, I fully agree with and subscribe to all the considerations developed in the other Considerandos, and, in particular, those detailed in Considerandos Quinto and Sexto are sufficient in themselves to sustain this ruling. Therefore, I concur with my affirmative vote on all that has been decided regarding upholding the defense of lack of right, dismissing the claim in its entirety, and ordering the plaintiff to pay costs.

POR TANTO:

The defense of lack of right raised by the defendant is upheld. The claim is dismissed in its entirety. The plaintiff is ordered to pay both costs of this action. Gustavo Irías Obando, Nombre125810  , Nombre457  .

 

 

- Verification Code -
???????????????
CQQGJLTEKUO61



 

Document signed by:

GUSTAVO IRIAS OBANDO, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A
Nombre457  , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A
Nombre125810     , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A

 

EXP: 15-002285-1027-CAGoicoechea, Dirección7876 , 50 meters west of BNCR, in front of Dirección18098 . Telephones: 2545-0107 (EXT 01-2707) or 2545-0099 (EXT 01-2599). Fax: 2241-5664 and 2545-0006. Email: ...0

\n\nCED121827, in his capacity as General Attorney-in-Fact without limit as to sum; against the **MUNICIPALITY OF PÉREZ ZELEDÓN,** represented by its Mayor, **Nombre26960**, of legal age, educator, resident of Pérez Zeledón, identity card number CED121828. Appearing as Special Judicial Attorneys-in-Fact for the plaintiff are legal professionals Nombre21480, identity card number CED121829, and Nombre153995, identity card CED121830; and as Special Judicial Attorneys-in-Fact for the defendant, licensed attorneys Jimmy Arias Dávila, identity card CED121831, and Marcos Fallas Chinchilla, identity card CED121832.\n\n**WHEREAS (CONSIDERANDO):**\n\n**FIRST. PRELIMINARY ASPECTS:**\n\n**1.-** By brief filed on March eleventh, two thousand fifteen, the representation of Nombre46090 filed a contentious-administrative lawsuit against the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón, seeking that the judgment order: *“1. The absolute nullity of resolutions No. 566-2014 of 09:45 hours on November 20, 2014, from the Third Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, in its capacity as improper two-phase superior of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón, which confirms the actions of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón, through an agreement adopted by the Municipal Council of Pérez Zeledón in Extraordinary Session No. 066-13, Article 2), Subsection 16) of July 11, 2013. 2. The effective refund of the monies paid under protest by this representation insofar as the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón has continued with its collection procedures in relation to the municipal business license tax. Likewise, I request that the amount to be refunded be indexed plus the respective accumulated interest from the date of payment until its effective refund. 3. The Tribunal is requested to rule on the condition of exempt subject from the payment of municipal business license that corresponds to the plaintiff in its condition as a cooperative in order to avoid future collection actions by the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón. 4. That in case of opposition, the defendant be ordered to pay costs.* (Folios 67 to 83 of the judicial file).\n\n**2.-** The Municipality of Pérez Zeledón answered the lawsuit in the negative, raised the defense of lack of right, and requested that it be declared without merit with an award of costs against the plaintiff. (Folios 90 to 133 of the judicial file).\n\n**3.-** On June twenty-third, two thousand sixteen, the Preliminary Hearing was held with the attendance of representation from both parties. There, the claims deduced in the complaint were ratified, facts 5, 6, and 10 were set as disputed, the documentary evidence offered was admitted, the process was declared as one of pure law, and both parties rendered conclusions orally. (Images 189 to 191 of the digital file).\n\n**4.-** In the proceedings, the necessary prescriptions have been observed, and no vices or omissions capable of generating nullity or defenselessness for the parties are perceived. This judgment is issued unanimously, following the necessary deliberations and with the drafting by **Judge Irías Obando.**\n\n**SECOND. CASE THEORY. SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES' POSITIONS: Nombre46090** states that it is a cooperative savings and loan association, constituted under the regulatory framework of the Cooperative Associations Law No. 4179 of August 22, 1968, all its reforms, and particularly the Integral Reform to the Cooperative Associations Law and Creation of the National Institute for Cooperative Development Law No. 5185; that by reason of its nature, it is registered before the Department of Social Organizations of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security, through resolution number C-0148 of November 18, 1966; and that it is authorized to carry out the activity of financial intermediation in accordance with the bylaws authorized by the Ministry of Labor, supervised under the regulatory framework of the National Institute for Cooperative Development, which supervises the operation and pursuit of social purposes, and the General Superintendency of Financial Entities; in addition to being registered before SUGEF and subject to a regime of special subjection which limits the activity to the fulfillment of its economic and social objectives that guarantee its associates the most efficient and secure administration of their resources, as prescribed by Law No. 7391, Regulation of Financial Intermediation by Cooperative Organizations. It argues that Nombre46090, as a national-level cooperative association, carries out its activity in various cantons, in which it enjoys the rights contained within the Cooperative Associations Law, for carrying out its financial intermediation activity with the aim of seeking the social benefit of its associates, according to the contents of its articles of incorporation, resulting in the fact that for the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón, financial intermediation per se is lucrative, and for that reason alone it must pay the Business License Tax, as well as that the surplus generated are dividends. It refers that through a brief filed on March 26, 2012, it proceeded to request the exemption from the Municipal Business License Tax from the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón; that through an agreement adopted by the Municipal Council of Pérez Zeledón in Extraordinary Session No. 039-12, Article 2), Subsection 20) of June 14, 2012, the request was rejected on the grounds that Nombre46090 is not within the list contained in the Law regulating the Business License Tax of that canton, of entities exempt from the payment of business license tax. It adds that it filed a motion for reversal with a subsidiary appeal before the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón on July 9, 2012, considering that by its nature, it lacks for-profit purposes, and therefore it is not obligated to pay the commercial license; and that through an agreement adopted by the Municipal Council of Pérez Zeledón in Extraordinary Session No. 066-13, Article 2), Subsection 16) of July 11, 2013, the reversal filed was rejected upon concluding that it misses the appellate phase as established in Article 156 of the Municipal Code, proceeding to admit the appeal filed in subsidium before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, which, through resolution number 566-2014 of 09:45 hours on November twentieth, two thousand fourteen, confirmed the challenged agreement and deemed the administrative channel exhausted. It performs an analysis of the regulations applicable to Savings and Loan Cooperatives that exempt them from municipal business license payment, the bylaws and articles of incorporation approved by the Ministry of Labor, INFOCOOP, and SUGEF that guarantee the cooperative nature of Nombre46090 and the supervision carried out by SUGEF, as a requirement to carry out its activity, as well as case law, which it indicates has held that as long as the cooperative pursues the purposes for which it was constituted, it is exempt from the payment of municipal business license tax. Regarding the regulations, it indicated the chargeable event provided for in Article 79) of the Municipal Code and the Business License Tax Law of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón, extracting from the citation of its articles 43 and 2 that the cited Law in no way equates consumer with a Cooperative member, (understanding that this does not imply that said definition encompasses the term), as well as that the definition of lucrative activity does not include the surplus generated by cooperative associations. It concludes that according to the regulations to be analyzed, it will be determined that Nombre46090 does not have the condition of passive subject of the tax obligation to pay business license tax. That Article 64) of the Political Constitution establishes the State's obligation to promote the creation of Cooperatives as a means to improve the living conditions of their associates. That the Cooperative Associations Law encourages and regulates cooperative activity, and the second article indicates that they are voluntary associations of persons and not of capital, in which individuals organize themselves democratically in order to satisfy their needs and promote their economic and social improvement, and the motive of work and production, distribution, and consumption is service and not profit. That it is deduced from both regulations that cooperatives are oriented solely toward the economic and social improvement of their associates without for-profit purposes. It is the constitutional provision that is extended in the law, and for this reason, the Cooperative Associations Law indicates that they are of public convenience, utility, and social interest as a means for economic, social, and cultural development, and Article 4 prohibits cooperatives from carrying out activities not oriented toward the indicated purposes. For its part, the cited law in its Article 21, referring to savings and loan cooperatives—such as COOPENAE—indicates that their primary purpose is to promote savings and the discreet use of personal solidarity credit. That likewise, the \"Law Regulating the Financial Intermediation Activity of Cooperative Organizations\" No. 7391, indicates that these cooperatives shall be regulated by the General Superintendency of Financial Entities, and according to Article 6), the fact that they have the handling of financial resources at their disposal, could not be considered to have for-profit purposes. For its part, Article 78) indicates that Cooperatives do not have profits, but rather savings or surpluses, and these belong to their members, meaning that when they leave the association, it is distributed among its associates, and thus the social purpose, which is the satisfaction of the economic and social well-being of its members, is fulfilled, and the fact that these members obtain an economic benefit does not denature the cooperative condition. Article 6.b) of the same regulatory body exempts them from the payment of all national or municipal taxes or fees; thus, the Legislature generated a privilege for these social entities, and it is not for the Municipality to decide which Cooperatives must pay the business license tax and which ones do not. Thus, it must be understood that the Business License Law of Nombre265 taxes the exercise of a lucrative activity and does not include the activity of a savings and credit cooperative, this because the cooperative's activity, by special law, is not lucrative, which prevails over the general law, which is the Municipal Business License Law of Nombre265. Regarding the bylaws and articles of incorporation of COOPENAE, approved by the Ministry of Labor, INFOCOOP, and SUGEF, it indicated that Article 13.e) states that the cooperative's objectives are to grant different types of savings and credit services to the associates through the efficiency of its operation, but without for-profit purposes, since doing so would place it outside the law. That for the fulfillment of these purposes, Article 14 of its bylaws authorizes it to capture resources from its associates, grant them credit, carry out transactions with securities, establish investment funds, etc.; an activity that the law classifies as non-lucrative, and according to Opinion C-199-96 of the Attorney General's Office of the Republic, Nombre46090, due to the activity it carries out, is in a relationship of special subjection, and that when they capture money from their own associates, with the purpose of placing it in the financial market as credits or investment, it is for the purpose of promoting in its associates the habit of saving and personal credit, without this denaturing their condition as non-profit entities, and that they are supervised by INFOCOOP or SUGEF in whatever corresponds to each, always provided that it does not depart from financial intermediation, since doing so would result in sanctions. In addition to the cited criterion, the representation of Nombre46090 indicates that Article 6 of Law No. 7391 states that Savings and Credit Cooperatives do not lose their condition as promoters and drivers of the social development of their members, by the mere fact of engaging in financial intermediation. Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff concludes that the Municipality and the Third Section misinterpret its situation by considering that because they carry out financial intermediation, by that simple fact they profit and therefore must not enjoy the exemption provided by the Cooperative Associations Law to all, without any distinction. However, Law No. 7391 states that the financial intermediation activity carried out by this type of cooperatives (Savings and Credit) does not have profit as its purpose, and its Article 2) expressly states that acts of financial intermediation are cooperative acts and subject to cooperative law, and supplementarily by commercial law, insofar as it is compatible with its special nature, and the financial intermediation activity, according to Article 3 of that Law, is defined as the capture of money from their own associates, with the purpose of allocating it to the granting of credits or investment in the financial market, so that the fact that Nombre46090 engages in financial intermediation does not thereby denature its condition as a non-profit Cooperative, and the resolutions being challenged do not demonstrate situations different from those provided for in the norm that authorizes Savings and Loan Cooperatives to carry out financial activity without for-profit purposes, to the point of justifying a profit that is, ultimately, the chargeable event of the business license tax. Regarding national case law, the representation of Nombre46090 indicates that the jurisprudential line has been that cooperatives are not subject to business license payment provided that the activity they carry out falls within their corporate purpose, according to their nature, for which the provisions of their bylaws must be observed, such that if the activity goes beyond the general objectives of the organization, it will then be a for-profit activity, and in that case, it does need a business license to carry out the activity in the canton. That in judgment No. 268-2003 of 15:45 hours, the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal refers to the non-subjection of cooperatives to the payment of the cited tax, and for its part, Chamber I, in ruling 26-97 of 14:15 hours, April 16, 1997, indicated that the concept of profit is antithetical to that of cooperativism, and therefore they cannot coexist jointly, such that it is impossible for a cooperative to carry out a lucrative activity. It explains that what the Courts have said is that a Cooperative is obligated to pay the business license tax when it transgresses its articles of incorporation and implements practices extraneous to the purposes for which it was created, and in this same sense, the Attorney General's Office of the Republic, in Opinions No. C-205-99 and No. 237-2007, which state that cooperatives will not enjoy the privilege only when they depart from their scope of creation, and on that percentage not covered by the cooperative associations law, it must declare the corresponding aliquot portion, and then it will be up to each municipality, based on accounting records, to determine if they are carrying out commercial activities with non-member third parties and with for-profit intent. However, in the case of COOPENAE, the Municipality of Nombre265 starts from the assumption that \"financial intermediation\" is in itself lucrative, but without demonstrating that the cooperative effectively profited from intermediation, the only scenario in which the cooperative would be a passive subject of the tax obligation. **The Municipality of Nombre265** opposes the lawsuit, alleging lack of right. It maintains that Nombre46090 is subject to the corresponding municipal business license tax, given that Article 170 of the Constitution derives the second-degree autonomy of local governments, a principle from which the taxing or tributary power of the municipalities emerges to cover the cost of public services through collected revenues. It states that, in this sense, through Law No. 8821, Law of Licenses and Business Licenses of the Municipality of Nombre265, it is clear that the necessary legal procedures have been complied with so that it effectively manifests itself in taxes that are subject to the constitutional principles inherent to that matter; such that the Legislative Assembly only issues a \"typically tutelary authorization\" when exercising the power conferred by Subsection 13) of Article 121 of the Political Constitution, whereas it corresponds to local governments to exercise the creation, modification, or extinction of municipal taxes, as well as the power to exempt from taxes. It cites Article 4 of the Municipal Code, from which it deduces that each local government is free to define the limits of its own taxing power, so the municipal tax imposition systems for their specific collection and application are of the most varied nature. It elaborates on the argument regarding the power of the Municipality in its condition as Tax Administration. In this regard, it states that Article 99 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures defines the concept of Tax Administration, indicating that it is the public unit that administers and oversees the tax, which clearly agrees with Article 4 of the Municipal Code. It considers that it is clear that Municipalities are Tax Administrations, a condition that makes them deserving of all the competencies and attributes established generally in the law for such purposes, comprised primarily in the Municipal Code and subsequent to this general body, the respective municipal business license law and the provisions contained in the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures, according to what is prescribed in Article 9.1 of the General Law of Public Administration. It asks to take into consideration that, in determining sovereign powers, the matter is reserved to the law (Article 59 of the General Law of Public Administration), and in the case of local governments, they have constitutional support—Articles 169 and 170 of the Political Constitution—with the matter referring to tax matters being an essential part of government autonomy. Within those intrinsic powers of the Municipalities, it continues, there are state and municipal policies, through which exceptions to the application of taxes are created, such as fiscal exemptions or the granting of subsidies of various kinds, access to official credits with reduced interest rates and dilatory amortization periods, customs franchises, among others. It affirms that in the case at hand, exemptions seek to prevent the birth of the tax obligation, known as \"total exemption,\" or in other cases, reduce the amount of the tax, also called \"partial exemption,\" through bonuses or deductions, in light of certain factual assumptions included within the scope of the taxable event whose realization does not give rise to the emergence of the tax payment obligation, constituting an exception to normal effects. The tax exemption norm has the force to enervate the effects of the one that creates it, as it affects either the subjective or objective element of the taxable event, or the elements of tax quantification, that is, in the tax base or in the tax rate. The classical theory of exemption defines exemptions as a legal dispensation from the tax obligation, either as a derogation of the payment obligation, despite the taxable event occurring, which is the effect they produce, namely, the exception of the obligation to contribute to public expenses for certain subjects (subjective exemption) or for certain situations or events (objective exemption). Thus, tax exemption takes place when a norm contemplates that in those expressly provided-for cases, despite the taxable event occurring, its main effect does not develop: the duty to pay the tax or tax obligation. From that exposition, it concludes that, by its nature, ordinary law is the creative source of the tax and its exemption regime, whose conceptual framework is defined in the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures, Article 62, which in this regard provides that it is through Law that the specifications and scope of each exemption must be determined. It adds that in local tax matters, Article 79 of the Municipal Code creates a tax on the exercise of any lucrative activity (chargeable event), and it considers that from its text, it is clear who the passive subject of the tax obligation is and what the chargeable event is, such that anyone interested in exercising lucrative activities is obligated to obtain the license and pay its respective amount. That license consists of the permit or prior authorization by local governments to exercise economic activity. It explains that, properly in the canton of Pérez Zeledón, Law No. 8821, Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Business Licenses of Pérez Zeledón, develops everything related to the business license tax for commercial activities operated within the territorial jurisdiction of this canton, taxing in article 45, subsections b) and d), in relation to 2, subsection 1), all lucrative activities related to banking and credit, stating: *\"Article 45. The following persons are taxpayers of the business license tax of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón: (…) b) According to the nature of the activity they carry out: they are all those who carry out productive activities regardless of whether or not these are considered or declared by themselves as eminently lucrative. (…) d) According to the sector to which they belong: they are both those who participate in the primary sector as well as those in the secondary and tertiary sectors of the canton's economy and are also included in one of the industrial, commercial, or service sectors according to the provisions of Article 2 of this Law: \"Article 2: Preliminary definitions: For the purposes of this Law, the following concepts shall be understood: (…) b) Commercial sector: comprises the group of persons who carry out productive activities consisting of the transfer or disposal, by any title authorized in the legal system, of all kinds of goods and services. It also includes acts of valuation of economic goods according to supply and demand, such as representation houses, agencies, subsidiaries, branches, and, in general, everything that involves market transactions of any kind, banks and financial establishments, banking and exchange houses, stock brokerage and similar, and insurance institutions...\"* It argues that cooperatives, as forms of social and economic organization, seek an equitable distribution of income and the greater well-being of their members, a vital goal in a Social State of Law such as ours; and that is why Article 64 of the Political Constitution states: *\"The State shall promote the creation of cooperatives, as a means of providing better living conditions to workers,\"* and the first article of the Cooperative Associations Law and Creation of the National Institute for Cooperative Development, No. 4179 of August 22, 1968, and its reforms, reiterates: *\"The constitution and operation of cooperative associations is hereby declared of public convenience and utility and of social interest, as they are one of the most effective means for the economic, social, cultural, and democratic development of the country's inhabitants.\"* Cooperativism, it continues to state, is based on three fundamental values: equality, freedom, and solidarity; the foregoing is important because the legal regulation of cooperatives, as is logical, has its axis in those values and principles. It argues that currently, the situation of cooperatives has changed, and competition is a key factor for their growth; indeed, we see how today cooperatives created for a certain guild accept clients who do not necessarily belong to that guild, that there is an economic reality that must not be overlooked, the existence of a legal fiction that generally does not correspond to reality, since it is normal for cooperatives to seek to achieve their social goals through the generation of profit, with which the well-being and growth of their associates and the increase of capital are promoted. It maintains that in the present case, we must carefully analyze the principle of economic reality, a principle which furthermore brings us even closer to the reality of this canton, through which the fair collection of taxes is made, and uncertain parameters are set aside; it is clear that there are profits in cooperatives, financial transactions that benefit their associates. It points out that cooperatives, being enterprises, must generate economic surpluses to make their development and the achievement of their purposes viable and sustainable, especially that of providing more and better services to their associates and increasing, if possible, their number; like any enterprise, cooperatives can have benefits or losses. Although in their genesis, cooperatives do not have their reason for being in obtaining benefits or profits, currently all, or the majority, and in the specific case of Nombre46090, have as their main objective to increase the profitability of their members' activities, because by the nature of their main activity, focusing on savings and credit, it generates wealth that culminates in the distribution of dividends among its members. Therefore, and if in reality that gain—economic profitability—is being produced, we are indeed in the presence of the chargeable event required by Article 79 of the Municipal Code and Law 8821, Law of Licenses and Business Licenses of Nombre265. It also denies that a legal exemption exists in favor of cooperatives. It reiterates that the creation of legal tax exemptions or the release from the obligation to pay the tax is granted only by express will of the legislator, and in that sense, in the Cooperative Associations Law, there is no precept whatsoever that exempts cooperatives from the payment of the municipal business license tax. From the citation of Articles 6 and 78 of the law on that matter, it deduces that part of the benefits created by the legislator in favor of cooperatives includes the exemption from municipal taxes for acts of formation, registration, and modification of bylaws, in addition to exempting them from other legal requirements for their operation.\n\nIt considers that there is no exemption whatsoever from the payment of the patent tax; furthermore, the legislator provided for an exemption from Income Tax, and had it wished to at that time, it would have clearly provided for an exemption in their favor regarding the municipal patent tax. The existence of a tax exemption not included by the legislator cannot be inferred where the letter of the law does not provide for it. It deems that a different interpretation would violate the principle of tax legality contained in numeral 5, subsection b) of the Tax Code of Rules and Procedures, illegally creating an exemption not provided for in the law, and also transgress Article 6 of that same normative body, which prohibits filling legal gaps through analogy for the creation of exemptions.

THIRD. PROVEN FACTS:  The comparison of the available evidentiary elements allows this Nombre14216 to consider the following facts of relevance to the object of the process and the manner in which it is resolved as accredited:

1.- That the Cooperativa Nacional de Educadores R.L. (COOPENAE R.L.), is a cooperative savings and credit association, constituted under the regulatory framework of the Cooperative Associations Law No. 4179 of August 22, 1968, and its amendments, which is registered with the Department of Social Organizations of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security, through resolution number C-0148 of November 18, 1966. (Not contested, certifications visible on folios 1 to 5 of the judicial file).

2.- That Nombre46090  is authorized to exercise the activity of financial intermediation supervised by the General Superintendency of Financial Entities. (Not contested, certifications visible on folios 7 to 17 of the judicial file).

3.- That on April 28, 2011, Nombre46090 filed a request for a municipal license with the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, for the premises bearing its name to develop the activity of “Savings and Credit.” (Folio 002 of the administrative file).

4.- That through administrative resolution number RES 0645-11-SPL at 14:56 hours on June 27, 2011, the Coordination of the Sub-Process of Licenses and Patents (Sub Proceso de Licencias y Patentes) of the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón ordered that the requested license be conditioned, among other matters, on the payment of the patent tax for an initial quarterly amount of one hundred six thousand four hundred thirty-two colones starting from the third quarter of 2010, such that prior to the award, it had to pay four hundred fifty-two thousand one hundred sixty-six colones for this concept plus nine thousand forty-three colones for National Parks stamps, as an initial payment of that tax. (Folios 031 to 034 of the administrative file).

5.- That Nombre46090 complied with the payment referenced in resolution 0645-11-SPL on August 5, 2011, such that through award act number ADJ-26325-SPL of August 10, 2011, the requested license was granted. (Folios 039 and 040 of the administrative file).

6.- That through a writing filed on March 26, two thousand twelve, the representation of the Cooperativa Nacional de Educadores R.L. requested the Concejo Municipal (Municipal Council) of Pérez Zeledón to declare the exoneration in favor of its represented party regarding the payment of the municipal patent tax for the branch it has open in that jurisdiction, being a non-profit Cooperative and not performing the taxable event (hecho generador). (Not contested, folios 1 to 5 of the municipal appeal file).

7.- That through Extraordinary Session No. 039-12, Article 2, subsection 20 held on June 14, two thousand twelve, the Concejo Municipal of Pérez Zeledón ordered: “Deny the petition of Nombre46090 since they are not included among the identities (sic) or activities that can be exempted according to Law 8821 on Licenses and Patents.” (folio 13 of the municipal appeal file).

8.- That the Agreement described in the previous fact was notified to the aggrieved entity via fax on June 29, two thousand twelve, and through a writing filed on July 9, two thousand twelve, the Cooperative's legal representative filed an appeal for reversal with a subsidiary appeal (recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio) against it. (folios 13 and 14 to 25 of the municipal appeal file).

9.- That through an Agreement taken in Extraordinary Session No. 066-13, article 2, subsection 16, held on July 11, two thousand thirteen, the Concejo Municipal of Pérez Zeledón resolved to declare the appeal for reversal filed by the legal representative of Nombre46090 without merit, as the appeal action was not filed within the terms indicated by article 156 of the Municipal Code, and it admitted the appeal (apelación) to the Third Section of the Administrative Litigation Tribunal (Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo). (folio 98 to 102 of the municipal appeal file).

10.- That through resolution No. 566-2014 at 09:55 hours on November 20, 2014, of the Third Section of the Administrative Litigation Tribunal, in its capacity as Biphasic Improper Hierarchical Superior (Jerarca Impropio Bifásico), it ordered the following: “THEREFORE (POR TANTO). The Agreement taken in Extraordinary Session No. 066-13, article 2, subsection 16, held on July 11, two thousand thirteen, is confirmed. The administrative channel is deemed exhausted. Due to the manner in which it is resolved and consequently, as unnecessary, a pronouncement regarding the appeal filed against the Municipal Council Agreement No. 2, subsection 20 of Extraordinary Session No. 39-12 of June 14, two thousand twelve, is omitted.” (Not contested, folios 042 to 053 of the administrative file).

FOURTH. LEGALITY OF THE CONTENT OF THE CHALLENGED ACTS. As is evident from the background developed above, the object of this process  seeks the declaration of absolute nullity of resolutions No. 566-2014 at 09:45 hours on November 20, 2014, of the Third Section of the Administrative Litigation Tribunal, in its condition as biphasic improper hierarchical superior of the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, which confirmed the actions taken by the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón through an agreement taken by the Concejo Municipal of Pérez Zeledón in Extraordinary Session No. 066-13, Article 2), Subsection 16) of July 11, 2013. Such resolutions declared inadmissible the exemption request filed by Nombre46090 regarding the payment of the municipal patent tax for the branch it has open in the Cantón de Pérez Zeledón, alleging it is a non-profit Cooperative and does not perform the taxable event. Furthermore, based on the potential acceptance of those claims, it requested the reimbursement of the sums paid and the jurisdictional declaration that the plaintiff is an exempt subject from the tax in question. From the outset, and without prejudice to the additional reasons that will be set forth in separate considerandos, the majority of this Panel fully agrees with the opinion issued by the Third Section of this Tribunal in the resolution whose nullity is requested here, such that, given that the reproach formulated affects only its content and reasoning, it deems the nullity claim sustained by the plaintiff inadmissible. In this regard, in a matter identical to the one before us, as it involved an exemption request for the same tax filed by another Cooperative against the same defendant Municipality here, it was noted that:  “I.- The former article 79 of the Municipal Code -today article 88 by virtue of its numbering having been shifted by canon 1 of the Law for the Strengthening of the Municipal Police No. 9542 of 04/23/2018- states: 'To exercise any lucrative activity, interested parties must have the respective municipal license, which shall be obtained through the payment of a tax. Said tax shall be paid during the entire time the lucrative activity has been exercised or for the time the license has been possessed, even if the activity has not been carried out.' As can be clearly seen, the parameter for obtaining a municipal license for any natural or legal person in a given canton is that they carry out a lucrative activity, a term which, according to the definition of the Royal Spanish Academy, means 'that produces utility and profit.' / II.- Although it is true that, in accordance with numeral 2 of Law No. 6756, Comprehensive Reform of the Cooperative Associations Law of 05/05/1982, it is provided that: 'Cooperatives are voluntary associations of persons and not of capital, with full legal personality, of indefinite duration and limited liability, in which individuals organize themselves democratically in order to satisfy their needs and promote their economic and social improvement, as a means of overcoming their human condition and their individual development, and in which the motive of work and production, distribution and consumption, is service and not profit,' it is also a reality that, apart from the social function assigned by the Constituent Power itself in article 64 of our Political Constitution and by the legislator in article 2 cited above, there is another function of these groups that is entirely linked to commercial activity with third parties and not stemming from their social function, without this thereby distorting the purposes for which they were created. In this regard, both doctrine and jurisprudence have expressly recognized the performance of economic -lucrative- purposes by cooperatives. Thus, for example, the scholar Nombre153996 , when analyzing the possibility of cooperatives carrying out activities unrelated to the social purpose that corresponds to them, has indicated: 'the cooperative is by its nature a business because it exercises an organized economic activity for the purpose of the production and exchange of goods and services, which are organizations that do not perform charitable or benevolent works, but rather, like any economic enterprise, tend to achieve properly economic ends, in an economic manner' (Nombre153996 , Tratado de Derecho Cooperativo. Editora Zeus, Córdoba, 1974, p. 196). For its part, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in its vote number 5487-94 at 19:03 hours on September 21, 1994, for what is of interest here, reasoned: 'By virtue of the foregoing, if the appealing Cooperative intends to develop a commercial activity for the sale of food to the public, which is completely different from the object for which it was constituted, it is evident that it must request the corresponding commercial license from the Municipality, insofar as the sale of food to the public is not the reason for which the Cooperative was constituted.' And it is also not possible to pigeonhole the exemption from the patent tax within article 6 of Law No. 6756, because in its literal wording and for what is of interest, it has been regulated: 'Cooperative associations shall enjoy the following privileges: a) Exemption from payment of the territorial tax for a term of ten years from the date of their legal registration. b) Exemption from any tax or fee, national or municipal, on the acts of formation, registration, modification of statutes and other legal requirements for their operation' [emphasis supplied]. The undersigned, unlike my colleagues of Nombre14216, does not discern within the cited legal text regarding exemptions, that the express release of cooperatives from the payment of a commercial patent has been regulated, as was done with other taxes. By stating the rule that it is exempt from any tax or fee -national or municipal-, this judge understands that it is referring to the cases related to the structure of the cooperative -formation, registration, modification or operation specific to the organization-, not to the benefit -exemption- of not having to obtain a commercial license for the development of any lawful and lucrative activity, much less to its correlative payment of the patent tax. /  III.- Now, as was explained in resolution number 111-2016 of the Third Section of this Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, acting as improper hierarchical superior, and which has precisely been challenged in this litigation, the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Pérez Zeledón No. 8821 of 05/03/2010, developed everything related to the patent tax on commercial activities exploited within that canton, taxing -among others- productive activities related to the industrial and commercial sector, excepting those expressly indicated in that normative body. In that sense, in numeral 2 it defined: 'a) Productive activity: is that which, being inserted within the canton's economy, contributes to the production or transformation, both qualitative and quantitative, of inputs or raw materials into goods and/or services; likewise, it implies the transformation of some simpler goods and services into more complex ones, as well as the simple provision of services, directly or indirectly, to the consumer, thereby adding an estimable value in terms of production and development in the economic, social, and human spheres in general. b) Lucrative activity: is that which translates into a utility, gain, or benefit of a patrimonial or economic nature, derived from the exercise of a productive activity inserted in any of the fields of human activity. / g) Municipal license: is the authorization that the Municipality grants to a natural or legal person, of a private or public nature, for the exercise of a productive activity in the cantón de Pérez Zeledón. / i) Municipal patent: is the tax to which the person who has been granted a license for the exercise of a productive activity is obligated. / l) Commercial sector: comprises the set of persons who develop productive activities consisting of the transfer or alienation by any title authorized in the legal system of all types of goods and services. Furthermore, it includes acts of valuation of economic goods, according to supply and demand, such as representation houses, agencies, subsidiaries, branches and, in general, everything that involves market transactions of any type, banks and financial establishments, banking and exchange houses, stock brokerage firms and the like, and insurance institutions. m) Industrial sector: refers to the set of persons who develop productive activities consisting of material operations executed to extract, transform, or manufacture one or several products. It includes the processing of agricultural products and the mechanical, chemical, or any other transformation of organic or inorganic substances into new or different products, through mechanized processes or any other type, carried out both in factories and in homes. It includes both the creation of new products and the transformation of already existing ones, as well as repair, maintenance, and conditioning workshops for these products and the machines or equipment used to produce them.' In turn, ordinal 43 of said Law established the taxable event, specifying: 'Natural or legal persons engaged in the exercise of productive activities of any type whatsoever, in the cantón de Pérez Zeledón, must obtain the respective license and shall pay, to the Municipality, the patent tax that authorizes them to develop these activities. The Municipality shall set the patent tax rate in accordance with this Law.' And in canon 45, it defined the taxpayers, stating for what is of interest here: 'The following persons are taxpayers of the patent tax of the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón: (…) b) According to the nature of the activity they develop: they are all those who carry out productive activities, regardless of whether or not these are considered or declared by themselves as eminently lucrative.' Finally, in article 64, the activities exempt from the payment of the patent tax were regulated, with such rule stating: 'The following productive or organizational activities of the canton are exempt from the payment of the patent tax of the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, totally or partially in the proportion indicated here: a) Political parties, unions, professional associations and their affiliates, foundations duly constituted and registered in accordance with Law No. 5338, of August 28, 1973, non-governmental organizations working exclusively for the achievement of public purposes, solidarity associations duly constituted and registered in accordance with Law No. 6970, of November 7, 1984, rural aqueduct administration associations, sports associations duly constituted and registered in accordance with Law No. 5418, of November 20, 1973, community development associations duly constituted and registered in accordance with Law No. 3859, of April 7, 1967 and, in general, all public state enterprises as well as state organizations and institutions, both centralized and decentralized. The productive activities of consumption, generation, or distribution of goods and services that they carry out or that they have concessioned or authorized third parties to exploit shall not be exempt.' As can be seen from the foregoing transcribed provisions, neither in the regulation specific to the cantón de Nombre265 did the legislator provide for exonerating cooperatives from the patent tax when they carry out lucrative activities within its jurisdiction. /  IV.- Having examined the foregoing regulatory recapitulation, it is the criterion of this judge that if the legislator had had the clear and unequivocal intention to exonerate cooperatives from the payment of commercial patent, it would have done so expressly, but neither in Law No. 6756, Comprehensive Reform of the Cooperative Associations Law of 05/05/1982, nor in the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Nombre265  No. 8821 of 05/03/2010, was it so stipulated, and it is therefore not possible to distinguish where the law does not, as that would be like creating a tax exemption not included by the legislator, running the risk of violating the principle of tax legality contained in numeral 5, subsection b) of the Tax Code of Rules and Procedures. Furthermore, the principle of economic reality cannot be lost sight of, especially when dealing with an entity of such magnitude in the national economic market as the one taking action in this litigation, it being easy to perceive and identify as a public and notorious fact that the Cooperativa de Productores de Leche Dos Pinos Responsabilidad Limitada has a commercial line aimed at profit to obtain a gain; so things being, even if the law provides that cooperatives do not have lucrative purposes, if in reality the plaintiff cooperative is generating returns, we are indeed in the presence of the taxable event required by article 79 -today 88- of the Municipal Code and the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Nombre265  No. 8821, and therefore, it must obtain a patent for the lawful exercise of its lucrative activity.' (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Seventh Section, number 061-2018 at thirteen hours on August sixteen, two thousand eighteen). As can be appreciated, the cited vote, which was then a minority but which the majority of this Panel shares, is identical to the matter now before us, insofar as it hears an exemption request from a Cooperative Association filed against the Municipalidad de Nombre265  for the same substantive reasons that were argued here, such that, mutatis mutandis only with respect to the identification of the resolution that exhausted the administrative channel, the majority invokes such reasoning in order to declare the lack of right of the claim.

FIFTH. THE EXEMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS LAW DO NOT AFFECT THE TAX CREATED BY LAW 8821:  Although the reasons given in the previous considerando are sufficient to declare the inadmissibility of the claim, this Tribunal also considers, in this section unanimously, that from a harmonious and analogical combination of the legal rules applicable to the case, the plaintiff here is not covered by the exemption that at the time had been provided in the Cooperative Associations Law No. 4179 of August 22, 1968, amended 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 any tax or fee, national or municipal, on the acts of formation, registration, modification of statutes and other legal requirements for their operation”. Note that, although it is true that in the previous normative precept, cooperative associations were exempted from all types of taxes, including municipal patents, it must be emphasized that subsequent to the promulgation of said legal body, the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Nombre265 , Law No. 8821 of May 3, 2010, was created, which among other scopes regulated the Patent Tax for that Canton, defined the taxable event of the tax, and who the obligated subjects are, in the terms that will be analyzed in the following considerando. The foregoing is relevant insofar as Article 50 of the Regulating Law of Existing Exemptions, Derogations and Exceptions, Law No. 7293 of March 31, 1992, clearly establishes: \\\"Article 63 of the Tax Code of Rules and Procedures is modified to read: 'Article 63-Limit of application: Even if there is an express provision in the tax law, the exemption does not extend to taxes established after its creation'.\\\" Thus, from the simple reading, review, and comparison of the dates of creation and effectiveness of the laws at hand, both the one containing the exemption from all types of taxes for cooperative associations, Law No. 6756 of May 5, 1982, which amended the Cooperative Associations Law No. 4179 of August 22, 1968, and the Law for the Regulation of Licenses and Patents of Nombre265 , Law No. 8821 of May 3, 2010, it is deduced with crystal clarity that the exemptions set in the former do not affect the later law. The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has maintained the thesis now set forth by this Tribunal,  and precisely analyzing the same law 8821 of Nombre265 , in vote number 001970-F-S1-2020 at 11:00 hours on June 3, 2020, in a case where another cooperative group claimed the exemption from the patent tax against the same Local Government defendant here, it indicated, for what is of interest here, the following: “(…) IV.- For this Nombre14216 it is undeniable that the IPM (Impuesto de Patentes Municipal) created by Law 8821 of May 3, 2010, is a tax subsequent to the generic exemption created by mandate 6, subsection b) of Law 4179. Although Law 4179 in the just-cited rule establishes the exemption from any tax or fee, national or municipal, on the acts of formation, registration, modification of statutes and other requirements for their operation, which clearly includes the payment of patents, as it is an unavoidable requirement for the operation of a cooperative that carries out a productive activity, it is clear that, in accordance with the reform made via canon 50 of Law 7293 to precept 63 of the CNPT, tax exemptions cannot be extended to taxes that are created subsequently. Thus, it is undeniable that the productive activities generated by the plaintiff are subject to the payment of the IPM of the defendant City Council, in accordance with ordinal 45 of Law 8821, as it is a municipal tax created after the exemptive rule established in article 6, subsection b) of Law 4179 (…)”. Note then that the Cassation Chamber itself of this Jurisdiction has already ruled on the non-affectation of the patent tax created by Law 8821 by the exemptions that had been agreed by prior law, including those established in the Cooperative Associations Law and its amendments, such that the claim that it be declared that the plaintiff is exempt from that tax cannot be accepted either, since, under the protection of the amendment provided in numeral 50 of Law No. 7293 to precept 63 of the Tax Code of Rules and Procedures, tax exemptions cannot be extended to taxes that are created subsequently.

SIXTH. THE TAXABLE EVENT OF THE TAX CREATED IN LAW 8821 DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THE EXERCISE OF A LUCRATIVE ACTIVITY. As was referenced in the corresponding section, the central axis upon which the entire theory of the plaintiff's case revolves consists of the fact that it has no profit motive (fines de lucro), and that for this reason it does not perform the taxable event, and consequently, it would be an entity not subject to the municipal patent tax. Also unanimously, this Collegiate Body infers that all this argumentation becomes irrelevant insofar as the specific law of the Cantón de Pérez Zeledón that serves as the basis for the defendant Administration's actions sets the taxable event and the condition of the obligated subject without taking the lucrative purpose into consideration. It is therefore worth specifying that, as a derivation of article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution, article 88 (formerly article 79) of the Municipal Code provides that, to exercise any lucrative activity in the cantons, interested parties must have the respective municipal license, which shall be obtained through the payment of a tax.\n\nThat tax shall be paid for the entire time the for-profit activity (actividad lucrativa) is carried out or for the time the license (licencia) has been held, even if the activity has not been conducted. From this rule, it is viable to distinguish between the license, which corresponds to the administrative act that authorizes an individual to carry out a certain activity of a for-profit nature, and the payment of the corresponding tax for it, which corresponds, precisely, to the Tax being discussed. More precisely, note that the tax administration capacity of local entities has a constitutional basis, specifically in subsection 13 of Article 121, insofar as it provides that it is exclusively the Legislative Assembly's authority to authorize municipal taxes; one of which would be the Business License Tax (Impuesto de Patente), regularly linked to the issuance of a municipal license, both aspects that, although distinct, are closely linked as explained by the Constitutional Chamber: \"IV.- On the distinction between license and business license tax (patente), and the collection of the business license tax in the challenged Law.- The license is a permit to develop a certain activity and the business license tax is a tax for the development of said activity. In municipal matters, normally the administrative acts of granting a license and collecting the business license tax go together, with one exception, precisely when it concerns for-profit activities carried out by a concessionaire.\" (Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, vote 6731–2016). Thus, concerning the specific topic of interest, Article 88 of the Municipal Code provides that: \"To carry out any for-profit activity, interested parties must have the respective municipal license, which shall be obtained through the payment of a tax. Said tax shall be paid for the entire time the for-profit activity has been carried out or for the time the license has been held, even if the activity has not been conducted. / In cases of public calamity or national or cantonal emergency, declared by the central Government, the municipalities and intendencias may suspend, at the request of the licensees, temporarily the validity of the licenses granted for a maximum period of up to twelve months. During the suspension period, since the commercial activity is not being developed, the corresponding tax referred to in the previous paragraph shall not be charged. / Every license suspension request must be made by the licensee in writing and indicate a means for receiving future notifications. The licensee may request the reactivation of the license at any time, whereupon the charging of the corresponding tax shall resume. For the effective reactivation of the license, the interested party must have paid any pending amounts related to this tax or be up to date in the event that they are paying their pending amounts through a payment arrangement. / After twelve months have elapsed from the suspension of the license and duly notified by the municipal tax administrations, licensees shall have a maximum period of ten business days to request the reactivation of their license. In case of not doing so within said period, the granted license shall be considered automatically revoked.\" (Thus amended by Article 19 of the Law to support the local taxpayer, and reinforce the financial management of municipalities, in the face of the national emergency due to the covid-19 pandemic, No. 9848 of May 20, 2020). It is clear then, that as it is a tax matter, although exercised by the Local Government, it is built upon and nourished by the general principles of that field, among which stands out, due to its relevance to the matter at hand, the Principle of Legal Reserve (Reserva Legal), stipulated and regulated in numerals 121.13 of the Magna Carta and 5 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, which in that order state: \"Article 121.- In addition to the other powers conferred upon it by this Constitution, it corresponds exclusively to the Legislative Assembly: (…) 13) To establish national taxes and contributions and to authorize municipal ones (…)\" and \"Article 5.- Matters reserved for the law. / In tax matters only the law may: / a) Create, modify, or suppress taxes; define the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship; establish the tax rates and their calculation bases; and indicate the passive subject (sujeto pasivo); / b) Grant exemptions, reductions, or benefits; / c) Classify infractions and establish the respective sanctions; / d) Establish privileges, preferences, and guarantees for tax credits; and / e) Regulate the modes of extinguishment of tax credits by means other than payment. / In relation to fees, when the law does not prohibit it, its Regulation may vary its amount so that they fulfill their purpose in a more suitable manner, after intervention by the body that by law is in charge of regulating public service tariffs\". Therefore, the creation of the tax that is the subject of this proceeding, the taxable event that constitutes it, as well as the calculation base of its amount, are aspects that, among others, must be pre-established in laws in the formal and material sense, emanating from the Legislative Assembly, for each specific Canton, given the territorial nature of municipal competencies. Ergo, for each Canton the regulation is distinct and specific, and although they may bear similarities, nothing prevents the constitutive elements of the tax from being legislated differently from one Canton to another. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber has explained that: \"(...) the laws that regulate this type of tax may contain different taxable events and may even tax the productive activity, among other presuppositions. This conclusion is derived from the correct interpretation of the rules that regulate the institution of this tax in the Municipal Code, which in its Article 98, provides that 'no one may open establishments dedicated to for-profit activities or engage in street vending without having the respective municipal license' (the underlining is not in the original), and in Article 96 of the same code, which indicates that all for-profit activities, subject to license, must pay the business license tax. From those texts it is evident that for-profit activities are legally susceptible to being levied with a tax or business license tax, leaving it to the criterion of the municipal administration to structure the elements of the tax obligation. (...)\" (Vote 2197-92 of May 10, 1993) (emphasis supplied by this Tribunal). Under the referenced parameters, in the analysis of the specific case we find that the tax to which the plaintiff claims non-subjection was created by Law number 8821 of May three, 2010, called \"Regulation of Licenses and Business License Taxes of Nombre265\", which regarding its relevant elements provided: \"ARTICLE 39.- Establishment of the tax In accordance with what Article 79 of the Municipal Code establishes, the municipal business license tax is created in the canton of Pérez Zeledón, so that those administered contribute in solidarity to the development of the canton and at the same time can exercise their rights over productive activities, enshrined in the municipal licenses granted to them. / ARTICLE 40.- Obligation to pay the tax derived from the existence of a license. The productive activities (actividades productivas) that are developed in the canton of Pérez Zeledón may only be carried out through municipal authorization by means of a license. For the exercise of this license, the person administered must pay a business license tax to the Municipality. (…) ELEMENTS OF THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX. ARTICLE 43.- Taxable event. The natural or legal persons who engage in the exercise of productive activities of any type they may be, in the canton of Pérez Zeledón, must obtain the respective license and shall pay, to the Municipality, the business license tax that empowers them to develop these activities. The Municipality shall set the rate of the business license tax in accordance with this Law. / ARTICLE 44.- Passive subjects. The passive subjects of the business license tax of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón are both the taxpayers and the declarants of said tax. Any person administered who carries out a productive activity and is the assignee of a municipal license is a declarant of the tax and who, by reason thereof, is obliged to render, in accordance with this Law, a sworn declaration of their gross income, in order to determine the amount of tax to be charged to them. A taxpayer of the tax is one who, being a declarant, must additionally contribute with the payment of a certain sum of money as the amount of their tax obligation. / ARTICLE 45.- Taxpayers. The taxpayers of the business license tax of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón are the following persons: a) In accordance with the nature of the persons: all natural and legal persons, with the only exceptions expressly set forth in this Law. b) In accordance with the nature of the activity they develop: are all those who carry out productive activities, regardless of whether they are or are not considered or declared by themselves as eminently for-profit.\" (the bold and underlines do not correspond to the original, they have been supplied by this Tribunal). It is then, absolutely clear that the entire thesis of the plaintiff regarding the fact that it has no profit motive (finalidad de lucro) and that its activity is not for-profit, is irrelevant for the specific case of Nombre265, which is the only one examined here. The legislator, at the instance of the administration itself, chose for this Canton to dispense with the concept of profit for the purpose of determining the taxable event and the passive subject. For the former, it defined that it would be the exercise of any type of productive activity within the Canton, and regarding the latter, it emphasized that all those who carry out productive activities would be subject to the tax, regardless of whether or not they are considered or declared by themselves as eminently for-profit. For greater abundance and clarity, the same law defined what should be understood by productive activity and what by for-profit activity, completely demarcating them, and making it clear that they are different activities, providing to that effect that: \"ARTICLE 2.- Preliminary definitions. For the purposes of this Law, the following concepts shall be understood: a) Productive activity: is that which, being inserted within the economy of the canton, contributes to the production or transformation, both qualitative and quantitative, of inputs or raw materials into goods and/or services; likewise, it implies the transformation of some simpler goods and services into more complex ones, as well as the simple provision of services, directly or indirectly, to the consumer, adding with all this an estimable value in terms of production and development both in the economic, as well as social and human spheres in general. b) For-profit activity: (actividad lucrativa) is that which results in a utility, gain, or benefit of a patrimonial or economic type, derived from the exercise of a productive activity inserted in any of the fields of human activity.\" In accordance with all of the foregoing, it is undeniable that the administrative action whose annulment is sought is in accordance with the law, that the plaintiff is subject to the business license tax in the Canton of Nombre265 and that it does not have an exemption that benefits it, for which reason the claim must be declared without merit in all its aspects.\n\n**SEVENTH. DEFENSES:** The defendant Municipality raised the defense of lack of right. In the preceding Recitals, the Tribunal has detailed the reasons why it considers that the challenged acts are in accordance with the law, are not affected by any nullity defect, that the plaintiff Cooperative is subject to the payment of the Business License Tax of Nombre265, and that the exemption it sought does not apply in its favor. As a result of the foregoing, the plaintiff would also have no right to the return of the amounts it has already paid for that concept. The corollary of all of the foregoing is that the raised defense must be upheld, declaring the claim without merit in all its aspects.\n\n**EIGHTH. COSTS:** In accordance with numeral 193 of the CPCA, procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party for the fact of being so. The waiver of this condemnation is only viable when there was, in the Tribunal's judgment, sufficient reason to litigate or, when the judgment is issued by virtue of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In this case, we find no reason whatsoever that allows applying the cited exceptions, for which reason the costs -procedural and personal- shall be borne by the plaintiff.\n\n**NINTH. NOTE BY JUDGE IRÍAS OBANDO.** With the utmost respect and consideration for my colleagues of the Chamber, I dissent from them only on the reasons given in Recital Four of this judgment. Specifically, I do not concur that the defendant Administration or the Tribunal may, under the principle of economic reality (principio de realidad económica), determine a priori that a specific Cooperative Association exercises for-profit activity subject to the business license tax, when that is the taxable event. In my opinion, a determination in that sense, insofar as it distances itself from the nature granted by law to such entities, is only possible as a result of a procedure of guarantees with the burden of proof on the respective Tax Administration, in accordance with the provisions of numerals 140) of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures and Article 317) of the Civil Procedure Code in force on the date of filing of this claim, or of 41.1 of the Code of that matter in force, all in relation to 220) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code. However, I fully agree and subscribe to all the considerations developed in the other recitals, it being the case that, in particular, those detailed in Recitals Fifth and Sixth are sufficient in themselves to sustain this ruling, for which reason I concur with my affirmative vote to everything decided regarding upholding the defense of lack of right, declaring the claim without merit in all its aspects, and ordering the plaintiff to pay costs.\n\n**THEREFORE:**\n\nThe defense of lack of right raised by the defendant is upheld. The claim is declared without merit in all its aspects. The plaintiff is ordered to pay both sets of costs of this action. **Gustavo Irías Obando, Nombre125810, Nombre457.**\n\n| - Verification Code - |\n| :--- |\n| ??????????????? |\n| CQQGJLTEKUO61 |\n\n| Document signed by: |\n| :--- |\n| GUSTAVO IRIAS OBANDO, DECISIVE JUDGE |\n| Nombre457, DECISIVE JUDGE |\n| Nombre125810, DECISIVE JUDGE |\n\nEXP: 15-002285-1027-CAGoicoechea, Dirección7876, 50 meters west of the BNCR, in front of Dirección18098. Phones: 2545-0107 (EXT 01-2707) or 2545-0099 (EXT 01-2599). Fax: 2241-5664 and 2545-0006. Email: ...0" }