How to Determine the Court Tax in Declaratory Actions in Tax Matters

In tax matters, the discussions with the Federal Tax Authority and with the local tax authorities are filed before the Courts in Contentious Administrative Matters through which the administrative decisions are challenged. However, under certain circumstances, the possibility of pursuing judicial protection at the federal level by obtaining a declaratory judgement under article 322 of the Argentine Civil and Commercial Procedural Code may also be considered.

One of the aspects analyzed in these cases is the quantification of the court tax, ruled by the Court Tax Law 23898. The matter raises several questions: in the declaratory action, is there an amount of the lawsuit or economic content that can be determined? Should the court tax be estimated at 3% of the economic content to be calculated by the plaintiff? Or can it be paid according to the fixed amount for lawsuits with undetermined sums?

On October 19, 2023, the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice (CSJN) ruled on the issue in "Frigorífico Paladini S.A. v. Entre Ríos, Provincia de Entre Ríos S/ Acción declarativa de Certeza." It is clear from this decision that the answer can vary depending on the circumstances of each case.

In this particular case, the plaintiff had been summoned to complete the payment of the court tax pursuant to the provisions in article 2 of the Court Tax Law. This article establishes that the applicable tax is 3% of the economic content of the dispute.

The plaintiff, Paladini[MF1] , filed an opposition and argued that it had not introduced claims susceptible of economic assessment by filing the declaratory action of certainty. Rather, it was simply seeking for a declaration that would put an end to the state of uncertainty regarding the constitutionality of the Province of Entre Ríos tax regulations he listed in the lawsuit. Therefore, Paladini requested the tax to be considered paid, in accordance with the fixed amount established by the CSJN (currently, Agreement 15/2022 establishes it at ARS 4700).

The CSJN granted the plaintiff's claim. To do so, it considered that, to quantify the court tax based on an established amount, it must result from sufficient objective guidelines that the claim has an explicit economic content, even when a sum of money is not claimed. Therefore, when the purpose of the action is to obtain a merely declaratory pronouncement, the CSJN considers that the lawsuit does not have a determined economic value, and consequently the tax is calculated according to the fixed amount of the claim.

Although the CSJN had already held this criterion in several precedents (judgment 330:4523 and cases CSJ 1985/2004(40-A)/CS1 "Alpesca S.A. c/ Santa Cruz, Provincia de y otro s/ acción declarativa de inconstitucionalidad" and CSJ 498/2013(49-R)/CS1 "Repsol S.A. y otros (Estado Nacional) c/ Neuquén, Provincia del s/ acción declarativa de certeza e inconstitucionalidad," of July 11, 2007, and April 7, 2015), the ruling in “Paladini” allows inferring cases of exception to the general principle in which the court tax could be quantified on an established basis:

1. If a declaratory pronouncement is sought to have effects on previous situations and not only for the future.

2. If a preliminary injunction is granted to exempt the plaintiff from paying taxes.

3. If the declaratory pronouncement pursues the neutralization of an administrative action from which stems the explicit purpose of collecting a sum of money.

The CSJN’s decision establishes clear guidelines quantifying the court tax. Taxpayers must consider these when deciding to file declaratory actions. Accordingly, the time to file such actions may be decisive and must also be analyzed, considering their admissibility requirements.