The famous free online encyclopedia Wikipedia says "MYSTERY is a strange hidden thing that can not be explained or understood" and maybe you are absolutely right when it comes to "mysterious prizes" because as we have seen in the different answers that COLLECTIONS Has given to the subject and what has shaped the definition of these awards in the recently published project of regulation of the same, generates an enormous confusion that in no way helps for its own regulation, monitoring and control, even less for the operation or exploitation Of such promotional and incentive mechanisms.

In truth it has been unfortunate the confusing way in which this issue of "mysterious progressives" or "mysterious prizes" and in general of the so-called "interconnected progressives" has been handled, all because of the desire to squeeze more the concessionaire operator of machines And it is precisely in this detail that lies the great difficulty and impossibility of defining "mysterious prize" but not to honor its name but because it can not really be defined by the entity or not at least if said definition implies A higher or lower value in the collection of operating rights.

Note that according to Article 14 of Law 1393 of 2010, that is, the rule that brought a new way of settling operating rights, will be calculated by the higher value resulting between the old formula of a fixed percentage assessed in minimum wages Which brought Law 643 of 2001, or "... 12% of gross income less the amount of prizes paid."

This is the strict transcription (except for the highlighting) of the legal text that governs how the amount of exploitation rights should be calculated from the online interconnection of machines, and as can be seen at no time the Legislator has excluded certain Kind of prizes like the mysterious ones.

But it turns out that in Colombia, thanks to the superior mandate of Article 338 of the Political Constitution, Congress,

“The Assemblies and Councils, in times of peace, are the only ones competent to determine how to calculate an income, to create taxes or to charge a citizen for the exploitation of some activity, therefore to COLJUEGOS does not have any legal capacity to exclude as a valid deduction a prize for being considered "mysterious"”

Much less if the category of "mysterious" or "not mysterious" depends on a simple definition, which is not to mention that it is ambiguous, confusing and contradictory.

To support the latter we affirm, let us see how the entity already in response filed 20151200422211 of December 3, 2015, signed by the then Head of the Legal Office of COLJUEGOS, Dr. Heyby Poveda Ferro, held that "mysterious prizes contravene the Law and The regulation of the promotional games, reason why in no way will affect the calculation of the tariff of operating rights and administration expenses in case of payment "and adds that" regarding the mysterious progressives of expressing that said prizes if Will affect the calculation of operating rights and administrative expenses, if paid, when considered as a prize of interconnected progressive slot electronic machines "and continues with the threat of penalty if a higher rate is not declared and within The same are included the roulettes with well or prize is mysterious or progressive.

We can see how for the entity on one side the mysterious prizes contravene the Law, but on the other, if they use generate a greater collection for the State because they generate a higher differential presumptive rate and cannot be taken into account for the deduction of prizes, Even if they affect counters.

However, in the new project that is about to become a regulation by the entity, and such "mysterious" prizes can affect or not affect accountants, in any case do not contravene the Law, only that they must be approved, ah And that yes, they must be assumed by the concessionaire, that is, that the entity recognizes that they incentive the game, increase the income, but the State participates in the profits but not the costs assumed to obtain that increase in profits ... Now if someone explains this MYSTERY, how can a thing be the denial and the affirmation of the same fact? In healthy logic this does not fit, is or is not legal?, is or is not a prize ?, if it is a prize should or should not be deducted from the profit? ... What a plot!.

COLJUEGOS has tumbled in this of the progressive and the mysterious, now pretends that the laboratories homologate the systems, but that yes, it has not issued a regulation of the same, now if I lost: are not supposed that the laboratories homologate Systems based on a standard issued by the competent body of each country?

“In COLJUEGOS, they believe with fervor in the proverb, coined by the immolated Chilean President Salvador Allende, who says: "We are going down a bad road from tumble to tumble but moving forward, advancing"”

Well, it is already 5 years since the new regulatory entity and we have no regulation of slot machines and casino games, we have not even defined how the progressives and mysterious prizes will be regulated, and on the contrary, everything seems to indicate which is going to be misguided.

A final reflection on the subject is that by means of regulation if the definition of progressive or mysterious prize or the issuance of a regulation implies more or less collection, that is to say, that modifies the formula of the calculation of the rights of exploitation, NO THERE IS FACULTY in the entity because this is the legislator's own, and the legislator in this case neither authorized nor distinguished between one or another mode of award, and by way of interpretation, the entity can not even apply a rule against Administered, because when the meaning of Law is obscure or there is a legislative vacuum, the operator of the rule, in this case COLJUEGOS, can not go by interpretation to make the norm for the user more severe or unfavorable, in this case Operators.

"The principle of legality in tax matters is enshrined in numeral 12 of article 150 and article 338 of the Political Constitution: the first consecrates a reservation in Congress to" establish tax contributions and, exceptionally, parafiscal contributions in cases And under the conditions established by law, "while the latter requires the Law, in some cases in concurrence with ordinances and agreements, to determine the elements of taxes. This principle is based on the aphorism "nullum tributum sine lege" which requires an act of the legislator for the creation of levies, which in turn derives from the maxim according to which there is no tribute without representation, by virtue of the democratic character of the Constitutional system and implies that only bodies of popular representation may impose taxes "(Constitutional Court C-891 of 2012, MP Jorge I. Pretelt Chajud)