Declaratory Actions and Court Tax: New Ruling

The facts

In the case “Correo Oficial de la República Argentina S.A. s/ Incidente sobre tasa de justicia,” the Argentine Post Office sought to neutralize the real estate tax claim levied on properties used for postal activities. The matter reached the Argentine Supreme Court through an ancillary proceeding that sought to determine the amount that should have been paid as a court tax.

On the one hand, the Argentine Post Office argued that, because the action was a declaratory action of unconstitutionality, the payable amount should be the one fixed in the Court Tax Law 23898, article 6. Pursuant to Supreme Court Agreement 15/2022—currently in force—such amount was ARS 4,700. The Argentine Tax Authority, on the other hand, argued that the main subject matter of the dispute was a declaration that the tax assessment was unlawful “both in the case set out in the plaintiff and in respect of any future event” and, therefore, insisted that article 2 of the same statute applied. This article establishes a court tax of 3% of the value of the subject matter in dispute.

The ruling

In deciding the matter, the Supreme Court especially considered the subject matter the plaintiff stated in the complaint and the acts identified in it, as well as to those that were later alleged as new facts in the main proceedings.

In particular, the Supreme Court relied on the fact that the initial complaint showed that the action sought a ruling that would neutralize the Tax Authority’s claim to tax the properties used for postal activities, together with a declaration of unconstitutionality of the local rules governing real estate tax and the imposition of surcharges, fines, and interest. Likewise, it further noted that the complaint sought a declaration that “any effect arising from the defendant’s tax claim was inadmissible.”

Citing other of its precedents, the Supreme Court confirmed that the reference to the “subject matter in dispute” in Law 23898, article 2 refers to the value at stake in the proceedings. Accordingly, when the claim seeks a declaration intended to neutralize and deprive the Tax Authority’s position of legal force—as is the case here, the Court stated—and, if the claim succeeds, such declaration would result in exemption from the tax obligation. Therefore, the action has an express economic content, and the court tax payable corresponds to 3% of the economic value of the proceedings.

Why is this ruling important?

This ruling is part of a consolidated line of Supreme Court precedents such as “Compañía de Transportes de Energía Eléctrica” and subsequently reaffirmed in precedents such as “La Pellegrinense” and “Coca Cola”—regarding the latter, see our article here—among others. In all these—all brought through declaratory actions—the Court held that the determination of the court tax must consider the economic content actually at stake in the litigation.

The Supreme Court’s case law clearly shows that the way in which the subject matter of a declaratory action for certainty or unconstitutionality is framed is a determining factor in the quantum of the court tax ultimately paid.