Mexican Supreme Court rules on relief of tax losses derived from alienation of shares

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

Mexican Supreme Court rules on relief of tax losses derived from alienation of shares

mexico-flag.jpg

Last month, the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice (MSCJ) solved several appeals of constitutional rights filed against Article 32, Section XVII, of the Mexican Income Tax Law (MITL).

The MSCJ ruled that the restriction to deduct tax losses derived from the sale of shares only against the profit obtained from the same transaction does not constitute a violation to the tax proportionality principle under the Mexican Constitution.

The ruling sets a precedent for all federal tax courts involved in appeals filed against this tax provision, having been approved by the majority of the MSCJ’s ministers.

Background

In 2002, Article 32, Section XVII, of the MITL stated that taxpayers where authorised to deduct the tax losses derived from the sale of shares only against the profits obtained from the same transaction.

As a result of being unable to characterise such deduction as an ordinary expense during the fiscal year, taxpayers filed several appeals of constitutional rights against Article 32, XVII, of the MITL.

Such appeals were resolved by the First Courtroom of MSCJ; the judges considered that the provision contravened the proportionality principle in the Mexican Constitution, considering that the losses should be deemed as an ordinary expense for taxpayers.

Consequently, losses from the alienation of shares could not be characterised as a deductible item only against the corresponding profits from the same transactions.

In 2008, Article 32, Section XVII, of the MITL was amended, among other aspects, by extending the period of time in which taxpayers were authorised to carry forward the losses derived from the sale of shares to deduct them against profits obtained from the same transaction.

This extension was from five to 10 years. However, the amended tax provision failed to characterise such losses as an ordinary expense despite the MSCJ’s resolution in 2004 that declared Article 32, Section XVII, of the MITL unconstitutional.

Taking into account the MSCJ’s 2004 resolution regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 32, Section XVII, of the MITL, taxpayers filed several appeals of constitutional rights expecting to obtain a favourable resolution, as was the case with appeals filed in 2002.

MSCJ’s 2013 ruling

In April 2013, despite the MSCJ’s ruling in 2004 through which Article 32, Section XVII, of the MITL was declared unconstitutional, the MSCJ resolved that such provision does not contravene the proportionality principle established in the Mexican Constitution by failing to allow taxpayers to deduct the losses derived from the sale of shares as an ordinary expense.

In general terms, the MSCJ decision states that these losses are not deemed as ordinary expenses but as deductible items within the same tax regime – that applicable to the alienation of shares. Therefore, the tax losses from the sale of shares should only be allowed as a tax relief against the revenue obtained from the same transaction.

The MSCJ’s ruling also said:

· The alienation of shares is an extraordinary transaction since it is not ordinarily executed by the taxpayers;

· The time in which the revenue is accrued and the losses are applied is highly variable;

· The calculation of the cost of shares takes into account several factors different from those which are taken into account at the time of the alienation; and

· It prevents the tax base from being eroded.

This decision is definitive and unchallengeable and will therefore have an important impact on sales of shares carried out in 2008 and subsequent fiscal years.

Consequently, we highly recommend analysing the tax treatment that was applied to sales of shares to avoid any tax contingencies within the corresponding fiscal year.

By principal Tax Disputes correspondent for Mexico, Karina Perez (karina.perez.delgadillo@mx.pwc.com) of PwC.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

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
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
Gift this article