Must Plaintiffs Pay Court Tax in Declaratory Actions?

On May 21, 2025, the Argentine Supreme Court issued a new ruling on the calculation of the court tax in declaratory actions in the case “Coca Cola Femsa de Buenos Aires S.A. c. Provincia de Buenos Aires – Incidente.”

Before turning to the Supreme Court’s reasoning, it is worth recalling that a longstanding question arises when paying the court tax under Law 23898 in declaratory actions brought before federal courts located in the City of Buenos Aires or in provincial jurisdictions: does the 3% rate apply? If so, how should the economic value of a declaratory action be determined? Or can the fixed amount provided for lawsuits with undetermined sums be applied instead? The core of the issue lies in whether declaratory actions have an economic content that can be quantified.

In this sense, the Supreme Court has held that when the purpose of the claim is purely declaratory and the dispute either lacks economic value or has a value that cannot be reasonably determined, the applicable court tax is the fixed amount established in article 6 of Law 23898.

In its ruling of October 19, 2023, in “Frigorífico Paladini S.A. c. Provincia de Entre Ríos – Acción Declarativa” (see our article on this ruling here), the Supreme Court outlined three exceptions to the general rule provided in article 2 of Law 23898 under which court fees may be calculated based on a determinable amount, even in declaratory actions:

1. if a declaratory pronouncement is sought to have effects on previous situations and not only in the future,
2. if a preliminary injunction that exempts the claimant from making payments to the State is granted,
3. if the declaratory pronouncement pursues the neutralization of an administrative action from which stems the explicit purpose of collecting a sum of money.

In the recent Coca Cola ruling, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine established in Paladini and found that the claim fell within the third exception to the general rule. In this case, the plaintiff paid the fixed amount established in article 6 of Law 23898, arguing that the action merely sought to eliminate legal uncertainty arising from provincial tax laws that imposed a higher gross income tax rate on companies operating industrial facilities located outside the provincial territory. The plaintiff also requested a preliminary injunction in connection with this issue.

The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s position because:

• The claim sought a declaration that would prevent the tax authorities from collecting alleged differences between the amounts already paid and those deemed payable. These differences had been estimated by the plaintiff at the start of the proceedings.
• The tax authority had already issued administrative measures under the tax procedure in connection with the contested fiscal claim.
• The claim had clear economic implications, as it pursued a declaration that would invalidate the State’s intent to collect, from which the plaintiff would be exempt if the action were successful.

Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff had to pay the court tax pursuant to article 2 of Law 23898, i.e., 3% of the economic value of the claim.

Why is this decision relevant?

Declaratory actions are particularly relevant in tax and regulatory matters, as they allow petitioners to clarify the scope or validity of a rule or legal relationship with the counterparty, to prevent harm before it materializes. They are also often used to request a judicial declaration of unconstitutionality in situations where an imminent government act cannot yet be challenged through ordinary legal channels.

In this context, the determination of the court tax may vary on a case basis, depending on whether—under the criteria developed by the Supreme Court—the declaratory action involves an economic interest, even when no specific monetary claim is brought.