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

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 & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

As German clients attempt to comply with complex cross-border rules, local advisers argue that aggressive tax authorities are making life even harder
Based on surveys covering more than 25,000 in-house lawyers, the series provides insights into what law firms must score highly on when pitching to in-house counsel
The UK tax authority reportedly lost a case due to missing a deadline; in other news, Canada has approved pillar two legislation
There will always be multinationals trying to minimise tax by pushing the boundaries of their cross-border arrangements, Rob Heferen claimed
HMRC’s attempts to crack down on fraudulent tax relief claims are well-meaning, but the agency risks penalising genuinely innovative businesses, writes Katy Long of ForrestBrown
Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa are among the countries the OECD believes could benefit from the simplified TP rules
It comes despite an offshore enabler penalty existing in the UK throughout the entire period
It is extraordinary that tax advisers in the UK can offer their services without having to join a professional body. This looks like it is coming to an end, Ralph Cunningham writes
Meet the esteemed judges who are assessing the first-ever Social Impact Awards
The ‘big four’ firm has also vowed to spend more on nurturing junior talent; in other news, Blick Rothenberg has hired a pair of tax partners
Gift this article