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 the IBS incorporates taxable events previously covered by state and municipal taxes, its governance and operational logic represent a significant departure from the legacy model
The new office on the fourth floor of 4 More London will span 14,230 square feet, with the potential to expand to the first and second floors
MNEs now face a shift from modelling to execution as the side‑by‑side deal forces tax teams to upgrade systems, harmonise data, and prevent costly pillar two mismatches
As recent surveys suggest a disconnect between AI adoption and employee engagement, the big four risk digging themselves into a strategic hole
Almost three-quarters of surveyed tax professionals are concerned about inaccurate AI outputs; in other news, Dentons hired a partner from CMS to lead its Belgian tax team
Long-running, high-value and complex enquiries are a significant reason for HM Revenue and Customs’s increased TP yield, experts suggest
Landmark legal updates in India have led companies to prioritise specialised tax advisers over accountants, ITR has found
Brazil’s shift to a nationwide consumption tax is more than conceptual; it fundamentally transforms municipal revenue, enforcement, and administrative disputes
While some advisers praised the ruling’s definition of a ‘voucher’ for VAT purposes, a UK partner said the case left unanswered questions
While pillar two has been enacted on paper in Brazil, companies are encountering a range of practical compliance issues, ITR has heard
Gift this article