All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Mexico: The decree to end all tax pardon decrees

Sponsored by

The decree to end all tax pardon decrees

Although this title may read like the like a title to a thriller novel or at least a pretty good campaign soundbite, it comes very close to the actual name of a recently published executive decree in Mexico.

Although this title may read like the like a title to a thriller novel or at least a pretty good campaign soundbite, it comes very close to the actual name of a recently published executive decree in Mexico.

Tax amnesties, or legally implemented tax pardons, have been a tool for the past three administrations. President Fox in 2001, President Calderon in 2006 and President Peña in 2012 all enacted, in one way or another, a form of pardon to qualifying taxpayers which resulted in large corporate groups getting huge deals that allowed them to clean the slate from a tax perspective.

All of these pardons were enacted by way of a legislative amendment to either the Federal Fiscal Code (2000), or to the Federal Revenue Law (2007 & 2013). All of them included clear and general requirements and were believed to be generally absent of abuse or corruption, but not necessarily absent of controversy.

The discussion stems from the belief that all of these amnesties were the result of high-level negotiations between the Executive Branch and large corporate groups seeking to get out of 'questionable' tax planning structures and operations in exchange for a low settlement.

Indeed, these amnesties did allow for a large cancellation of a tax liability, including fines and interest, while only requiring the taxpayer to pay a rather small percentage of the original liability.

While there isn't a general feeling that these processes were marred by corruption, it is largely believed that they were tailor-made to benefit specific large taxpayers. It is important to bear in mind that, in all instances, a significant amount of taxpayers, (small, medium and large) benefited from these amnesties, although the large write-offs came from so-called blue chip companies.

These amnesties are generally considered to be a perverse motivation for taxpayers to engage in aggressive tax planning, knowing that they will be eventually bailed out by the federal government. Fully compliant taxpayers have been very vocal in condemning these practices inasmuch as they create an uneven playing field since aggressive tax planning is believed to be available mainly to large taxpayers.

The decree

Given this background, it was to no one's surprise that, at the beginning of May, President López gave a presentation, as part of one of its daily press conferences, centered on the alleged millions of pesos that have been lost due to these amnesties in the past.

A couple of weeks after, the Executive Branch issued, on May 20 2019, a decree by which it was informed to the general public that the administration would (a) not issue any more such tax amnesties, and (b) cancel any decrees which pardoned tax liabilities to any taxpayers.

At first glance, this would seem like a natural closure to the whole "tax amnesties are bad" discussion.

The problem is that this decree raises more questions than it answers. For example, is it legally necessary to include in a decree a vow to not issue amnesties, or was it only necessary for the president to abstain from issuing the said tax benefits and to instruct the Congress, controlled by the president's party (MORENA) not to enact such amnesties (more so since all of the past tax amnesties had a limited life span which has long elapsed by now)?

Furthermore, by cancelling all decrees which pardon tax liabilities (there are two exceptions), the president actually creates a very real confusion pertaining to current decrees that include not only a cancellation of tax liabilities, but also other tax benefits such as tax credits.

Tax provisions included in the Federal Fiscal Code and in the Taxpayers' Rights Law include procedures by which fines may be reduced or even cancelled, and that are pivotal to everyday settlements. Stopping the issuance of these rulings could seriously hinder the abilities of taxpayers (regardless their size) to resolve their tax exposure without having to go to court.

High-ranking tax officials have stated adamantly that the intention of the decree is only to cancel amnesties as those described at the start of this article. The "considerations" section of the decree actually makes direct reference to the three amnesties we've addressed, but the actual articles of the decree are in no way clear.

Unfortunately, until an actual formal guideline is issued, one cannot foresee how the local and central administrations will end up interpreting this decree which feels, by any measure, unnecessary.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Several tax chiefs shared their administrations’ latest digital identity tracking systems and other tax technologies at the OECD’s annual meeting of authorities.
Businesses welcome the UK’s decision to scrap the IR35 reforms but are not happy about the time and money they have wasted to date.
Energy ministers agreed on regulations including a windfall tax on fossil fuel companies to address high gas prices at an extraordinary Council meeting on September 30.
The European Parliament raises concerns over unanimity in voting on pillar two, while protests break out over tax reform in Colombia.
Ramesh Khaitan speaks to reporter Siqalane Taho about tax morality, transfer pricing regulations, Indian tax developments, and the OECD’s two-pillar solution.
Join ITR and KPMG China at 10am BST on October 19 as they discuss the personal, employment, and corporate tax-related implications of employees working from overseas.
Tricentis and Boehringer Ingelheim, along with a European Commission TP specialist, criticised the complexity of pillar one rules and their scope at an ITR event.
Speakers at ITR’s Managing Tax Disputes Summit said taxpayers can still face lengthy TP audits, despite strong documentation preparation
Gig economy companies in New Zealand will need to fully account and become liable for the goods and services tax of underlying suppliers on their platforms, under new proposals.
Join ITR and Thomson Reuters at 2pm (UAE) / 11am (UK) on October 13 as they discuss how businesses can prepare for Tax Administration 3.0 and future-proof against changes such as e-invoicing and increasing digitisation.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree