Mexico: The “business reason” in the Mexican tax law

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Mexico: The “business reason” in the Mexican tax law

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_deloitte.png
Casinos are among those businesses impacted by partial exemption

In order to provide legal and tax treaty certainty, such a concept should be included and described in legislation because, the mere use of it has a clear negative impact on such resolutions.

It has become common practice for Mexican tax authorities to reject the deductibility of taxpayers' transactions based on an alleged lack of business reason of such operations. The SAT (the Mexican tax administration service) has found in this supposed business purpose an excuse to easily deny tax refunds and other valid operations of taxpayers without properly explaining what constitutes a valid "business reason", or how to prove that a given transaction actually had a business purpose.

It should be noticed that the Mexican law contains no provision defining the concept of a business reason, nor in which situations tax authorities are allowed to apply it, deriving in arbitrary rulings, tax refund denials or unjustified tax assessments by the SAT.

This is relevant especially in international transactions, where the rejection of a deduction consisting of a payment made abroad by a Mexican company to either a related or a non-related party will cause a double taxation scenario, regardless if the payment is made to a company residing in a tax treaty partner jurisdiction.

What is understood as a "business reason"?

As mentioned above, since the term "business reason" has no legal basis. Its interpretation depends on the tax authorities criteria in a case-by-case scenario. This discussion already reached the Supreme Court of Justice, which vaguely accepted the use of this principle by tax authorities for the specific cases discussed before the court.

Nevertheless, in Mexico, we still do not have any existing legal provision that describes or provides a proper meaning of what is to be understood as a "business reason" or the different features that the taxpayer should rely on in order to evidence the compliance with such a principle. At present, we only have non-binding criteria from the Mexican tax ombudsman and the above-mentioned decisions from the federal courts that state that whenever the tax authorities use the aforementioned concept, taxpayers will have to prove before such federal courts that their transactions had a business motive.

Therefore, Mexican taxpayers still do not have any legal certainty regarding the tax authorities' powers to use and apply this "business reason" concept, which clearly represents an additional and unnecessary burden for Mexican taxpayers. This situation continuously forces them to prove that they are indeed doing lawful activities that comply with the Mexican laws, even when the authorities do not have any legal basis to question their operations.

In order to provide legal and tax treaty certainty, such a concept should be included and described in legislation because, the mere use of it has a clear negative impact on such resolutions.

Further tax reforms will tell us if this arbitrariness ends or remains.

vega.jpg

Hernaldo Vega

 

aguirre.jpg

Arianna Aguirre

Hernaldo Vega (hevega@deloittemx.com) and Arianna Aguirre (araguirre@deloittemx.com)

Deloitte

Website: www.deloitte.com/mx

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

While pillar two has been enacted on paper in Brazil, companies are encountering a range of practical compliance issues, ITR has heard
Moore, founding partner of the Chicago tax boutique which bears her name, shares her career wisdom for ITR’s new Women in Tax interview series
But partners at the firm admit that jumping ship to the US would not be as easy as some believe
Governments are rewriting tax policy for the AI era, deploying digital taxes, tailored incentives and algorithmic enforcement that redefine where value is created
Wingrove will succeed Bill Thomas, who has served in the role since 2017; in other news, Andersen unveiled a sharp increase in revenues for 2025
Partners are divided on Italy vs PDM D’s analytical depth, evidentiary standards, and what the judgment signals for future intra-group financing cases
As GCCs increasingly become strategic hubs, multinationals face heightened risks around permanent establishment and place of effective management
While all options presented ‘drawbacks’, European Commission tax leader Wopke Hoekstra said the controversial US carve-out deal has ‘many benefits’
From tech preparations to competitiveness concerns, Tax Systems’ Russell Gammon addresses the most pressing client considerations arising from the SbS deal
Despite estimates that the US/OECD agreement will cost countries billions, the Fair Tax Foundation’s Paul Monaghan believes the deal is a ‘necessary evil’
Gift this article