Mexican court rules against taxpayer in transfer pricing case
International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Mexican court rules against taxpayer in transfer pricing case

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_deloitte.png
AdobeStock_44181693_loop

Mexico's First Circuit Court has recently ruled against a taxpayer in a case involving two transfer pricing adjustments that will make it tougher for companies to comply with their domestic tax obligations on time.

Transfer pricing adjustments are any modification to prices, amount of payment, or profit margins regarding transactions executed between a taxpayer and its related parties that tend to adjust the accruable income or deductions to the value of such transactions, as if performed by independent parties.

Two recent precedents regarding transfer pricing adjustments, both from a ruling by the First Circuit Court in Mexico City against a taxpayer, were published in the Weekly Federal Court Report in February.

In the first precedent (Register 2016257), it was decided that transfer pricing adjustments regarding transactions between related parties can be performed through a complementary tax return only when one of the parties is a non-resident, and only when the tax authority of the country where the related party is located performs the adjustment. In such a case, the Mexican tax authorities should accept the adjustment, the court ruled. However, this makes it difficult for taxpayers to comply with their Mexican tax obligations on time.

In the second precedent (Register 2016258), the court ruled that to be deductible as a result of transfer pricing adjustments, receipts or invoices for tax purposes must correspond to the fiscal year in which the transaction between the related parties took place. The reason for this is that the provider of the goods or services is bound to accrue income monthly and annually and, therefore, must verify that the transactions comply with Mexico's transfer pricing regulations. Along the same lines, the recipient of the goods or services, who takes the corresponding deduction, must analyse whether the transactions comply with the transfer pricing regulations.

The court also ruled that its interpretation is supported by Mexican law. The law states that, in order to take a deduction, taxpayers must meet the law's formal requirements, including the obligations pertaining to receipts for tax purposes, at the time of filing the tax return, at the latest.

These rulings are not binding on other courts or any other tax authority, but constitute a valid interpretation that could be wielded by them.

The second court decision is of particular importance because some taxpayers deemed that the interpretation to impose a limit was not initially stated in the Income Tax Law.

Nevertheless, to avoid further misunderstanding, the tax authority eased the interpretation of the court ruling through administrative rules in July and allowed taxpayers access to transfer pricing adjustments.

The new administrative rules state that if a taxpayer wants to make deductible transfer pricing adjustments for income tax purposes, the taxpayer must comply with the requirements stated in the law and the administrative rules.

Among those requirements, the taxpayer must have receipts for tax purposes or CFDI (valid invoices) that express the adjustment "can" be issued in the fiscal year when the tax return was filed or should have been filed. This distinctive feature allows taxpayers to avoid the referred limitation because it provides the possibility of issuing the receipt for tax purposes or CFDI in a different tax year than the one when the tax return was filed or should have been filed.

This conclusion was reached because the administrative rules provide that the tax receipt "may" be issued when the tax return should have been filed or was filed. This opens up the possibility to have a tax receipt or CFDI issued at a later date, unlike what the previous precedent construed by limiting the deduction of the adjustment, which allows the deduction only if the tax receipt for fiscal purposes is issued before filing the tax return.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Alex Gerko had challenged HMRC’s positions on deferred trading profits that he and other traders made while working for hedge fund GSA
The Tax Practitioners Board had required PwC to overhaul its internal processes following the tax leaks scandal
With corporate tax rates already exceeding 15%, India will need to think creatively to extract additional revenue through new pillar two rules, local partners tell ITR
France continues to be a hot spot for tax lateral partner moves, according to ITR+’s Talent Tracker
Losses for HM Revenue and Customs and the Australian Taxation Office, cum-ex fraud and a 'mysterious funder' all feature in ITR’s list of 2024’s most significant tax cases so far
New requirements for advisers to inform clients of any relevant matters that might impact their relationship have raised concerns from a raft of professional bodies
The fallout from PwC China’s Evergrande audit has reportedly hit the firm hard; in other news, the US and Turkey look to reform their corporate tax rates
Canada risks inflaming US trade relations in a presidential election year and increasing costs for consumers, according to local experts
Dudbridge, ForrestBrown director and head of its advisory practice, FB Consulting, tells ITR about the joys of tax advisory work, what he finds most exciting about the role and what makes tax cool
A UK court rejected Tills Plus’s claim for R&D tax credits due to a lack of technological advancement
Gift this article