Motivación en las sentencias emitidas por los jueces de primer nivel en Ecuador

Abstract

Abstract: This paper examines the judicial reasoning developed in the judgment issued in case No. 01501-2020-00028, corresponding to a tax litigation action in which the legality of an administrative act issued by the Internal Revenue Service was analyzed. Using instruments for evaluating sufficiency and proper reasoning, the argumentative structure of the ruling, the coherence between the facts in the case file, the assessment of the evidence, and the application of the constitutional and tax legal framework were studied. The analysis revealed that the judge presented a clear, complete, and well-organized rationale, basing the annulment of the administrative act on two essential violations: the granting of an unreasonably short evidentiary period and the improper execution of the notifications, which directly restricted the affected party's right to defense. No flaws in the reasoning were found, such as incoherence, incongruity, irrelevance, or insufficiency, since the judicial reasoning was developed precisely and in strict adherence to constitutional guarantees. The results confirm that the judgment constitutes an example of sufficient reasoning, capable of justifying the decision adopted and clearly conveying the legal and factual reasons that support it. They also demonstrate the importance of judicial reasoning as a control mechanism against inadequate administrative actions and as a tool that strengthens legal certainty, transparency, and public trust in tax litigation.