Mexico: Lack of business purpose as factor in determining sham transactions

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Mexico: Lack of business purpose as factor in determining sham transactions

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_deloitte.png
The new CIT project will bring changes to the existing model

A recent court ruling in Mexico has enabled the tax authorities to dive deeper into taxpayer affairs to determine whether transactions have real substance. Carlos Ramírez & Víctor Masón of Deloitte Mexico explain why taxpayers should take note of this judgment.

Mexico's Superior Chamber of the Federal Administrative Court published a decision in November 2017 in which it concluded that the tax authorities can take into account the fact that a transaction lacks a business purpose when determining whether a transaction has substance. The principles of the court's decision will apply in cases where the tax authorities discover during a tax audit that the transaction is not reflected in the taxpayer's accounting books.

The court stated that even though Mexican law does not define the term "business purpose", the concept is related to the profit earnings of an enterprise and, therefore, the absence of a business purpose for a particular transaction can be a factor that is relevant in determining whether a transaction is genuine and whether it lacks a real economic effect other than to create a tax advantage.

According to the Federal Administrative Court, the tax authorities can rely on the lack of business purpose provided other facts are present that corroborate that the transaction never took place, such as whether the transaction is unusual or exceptional, there is inconsistent data and documentation, there is an absence of infrastructure or personnel to carry out the transaction, a lack of cash flow, etc. In such cases, the burden then shifts to the taxpayer to demonstrate that the relevant transaction does have substance. Failure to do so can result in an assessment and potential criminal liability, depending on the circumstances. However, it appears that the lack of business substance on its own (i.e. without corroborating other factors), would not be sufficient to consider a transaction to be a sham transaction.

It should be noted that the tax authorities will be able to make the determination that a transaction is simulated without the involvement of a civil court. Under Mexican law, the tax authorities are required to provide a statement to the civil court in cases where they intend to make a sham transaction determination.

Taxpayers should be aware of this decision of the Federal Administrative Court and ensure that they maintain appropriate records of all documentation and other evidence that demonstrates a business purpose for their transactions.

Carlos Ramírez and Víctor Masón

Deloitte Legal

Website: www.deloitte.com/mx

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Luxembourg’s reform agenda continues at pace in 2025, with targeted measures for start-ups and alternative investment funds
Veteran Elizabeth Arrendale will lead the new advisory practice, which will support clients with M&A tax structuring, post-deal integration, and more
MAP cases keep increasing, and cases closed aren’t keeping pace with the number started, the OECD’s Sriram Govind also told an ITR summit
Nobody likes paperwork or paying money, but the assertion that legal accreditation doesn’t offer value to firms and clients alike is false
Ryan hopes the buyout will help it expand into Asia and the Middle East; in other news, three German finance ministers have called for a suspension of pillar two
SKAT, which was represented by Pinsent Masons, had accused Sanjay Shah and other defendants of fraudulent dividend tax refund claims
TP managers must be able to explain technical issues in simple terms, ITR’s European Transfer Pricing Forum heard
Prudential had challenged HMRC over VAT group relief; in other news, Donald Trump unveiled timber and wood tariffs, and the European Commission published a ViDA implementation strategy
Australia’s CbCR rules have ‘widespread support’ and do not put American companies at a competitive disadvantage, the FACT Coalition said
Baker McKenzie advised two of the member firms involved, while several advisers provided transaction counsel to US-based Grant Thornton Advisors
Gift this article