{"id":31,"date":"2022-07-05T16:40:43","date_gmt":"2022-07-05T16:40:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ics.cr\/?p=31"},"modified":"2025-03-19T23:09:09","modified_gmt":"2025-03-19T23:09:09","slug":"3-years-after-law-9635","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ics.cr\/en\/a-3-anos-de-la-ley-9635\/","title":{"rendered":"3 years after Law 9635"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Friday, July 1st, it was 3 years since Law 9635 went into effect, a regulation that undoubtedly changed the Costa Rican tax system by generating very important changes in the two main taxes, including services as part of the generating facts and migrating our archaic sales tax to a VAT more similar to that of the Europeans and inserting capital gains as part of our daily lives, especially for people who earn income from rentals.<\/span><\/p>\n

It would probably take many pages to analyze the changes and their consequences, but 36 months after it came into force, I dare to propose certain changes that need to be made to the enacted regulations. Of course, they will not be the only ones, but let's start here.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the VAT, we must reform the norm to clarify the rules of crediting, solve the mess in the construction industry that does not allow the crediting of input VAT and try to unify rates. Then, it is urgent for the competitiveness of the Costa Rican industry that a refund system with ex post and not prior controls be established and that the exoneration system be significantly improved.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the income tax, we need rules to avoid international double taxation, to allow the deduction of expenses in real estate capital income, to clarify the accrual of profits due to exchange differential (referred to in a couple of columns above) and to clarify that our system does not tax income earned abroad. I am not talking about desirable reforms to our system, but in accordance with what the legislator of the 9635 established, to clarify and respect such reforms that both at the administrative and judicial level, are not being respected. I propose a sort of clarifications and adjustments as a recognition of our Congress that the laws deserve to be reviewed and that the opinion that should be heard primarily is that of the addressees of such rules, i.e., the taxpayers. It would be very nice if the professional associations, chambers and associations had the opportunity to be heard by the legislators. The rules are one thing when they are approved, another when they are applied, because their interpretation and application is a process that almost always produces results different from those imagined by their authors.<\/span><\/p>\n

In closing, I would like to echo a request made by the authorities last week:<\/span><\/p>\n

\"If, during the contingency period, you paid taxes on Form D-110, and now, at the time you make the presentation of the declaration<\/a>If the amount is not charged, this amount is reflected in the banking connectivity system, omit this charge. This Directorate ( the DGT ) will be in charge of eliminating those amounts automatically.\"<\/span><\/p>\n

It seems to me an important clarification that has not been sufficiently disseminated.<\/span><\/p>\n

Receipt is acknowledged:<\/strong> NATO formally invites Finland and Sweden to join the Treaty. Shooting at shopping mall in Copenhagen. Carthage advances to the national soccer final. Tour de France starts. Storm Bonnie produces less damage than expected in Costa Rica.<\/span><\/p>\n