Temporary imports and Mexico’s VAT certification requirements
International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Temporary imports and Mexico’s VAT certification requirements

Sponsored by

eygreece.png
The main objective of the VAT and Excise Certification is to continue not paying VAT on temporary imports

Tere González of EY Mexico considers the challenges companies may face when using the systems that monitor all temporary goods imported into Mexico.

The VAT and Excise Certification was implemented in 2015. The main objective of the VAT and Excise Certification is to continue not paying VAT on temporary imports. Entities that will benefit the most are those with VAT credits granted with the IMMEX (manufacturing industry, maquiladora, and export services) programme. 

The Mexican Tax Administration Service (SAT) also implemented a system for monitoring and controlling the balances of VAT credit applied within those temporary imports (known as Annex 31).

Annex 31 works with the most basic control of debits and credits by applying a strict FIFO (first-in, first-out) method and is linked to the tariff code declared for raw materials; thus, a credit is obtained when an IMMEX temporary import is performed and a debit is applied when those goods are exported. 

Consequently, importers that apply credit on temporary imports are obligated to transmit a detailed deployment report on a monthly or bimonthly basis resulting in an additional administrative burden. Before the introduction of the VAT and Excise Certification, these activities were administered internally by IMMEX companies, so it was not necessary to inform any deployment report to the authority unless it exercised powers of verification in customs matters.

Challenges of Annex 31 administration

Since July 2020 some challenges have been identified in the management and updating of Annex 31. Due to the lack of exports and some changes to the legislation, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been some deviation within the transmission of the deployment reports, obtaining results such as a non-identified tariff code, no open balances or the ‘non-valid’ status reflected in the system (which may result in a potential suspension of the VAT certification benefit).

In February 2021, Annex 31 balances were updated, however, many issues were identified by taxpayers, the most notable one reports that the initial inventory was not affected which means that some over discharges were produced. This information was updated taking into consideration the previous six years of operation so importers must be ready to clarify any potential requirements from the customs authorities.

Additional changes were applied recently in all these systems, such as the reduction on legal temporality from 36 months to 18 or six months, thus, customs compliance teams should now be aware and working in the correct application of all adjustments to comply with customs obligations to avoid additional requirements and/or audits in regards to the correct management of VAT credit and IMMEX programme.

Recommended analysis

The best practices in Annex 31 management dictates a frequent conciliation with the Inventory Control System for Customs purposes (ICS or Annex 24) which can also reach the physical inventory. 

The administration burden of the recent changes made to the Law of General Taxation regarding Imports and Exports (LIGIE) means that a review of the update on tariff codes for Annex 24 and Annex 31 must be considered to avoid any potential impact on the continuity of the debits application resulting in an incorrect interpretation of the open balances which, in turn, influences the amount of VAT being paid.

The execution of such analysis will enable certified entities to comply with their customs and tax obligations and allow them to identify, for example, important deviations in the correct application of the deployment, as well as identify missing operations to be reported, trend consumptions in order to establish different KPI in the management of Annex 24 and Annex 31 or to prepare clear answers when the authority challenges the payment of certain VAT credits.

Also, the active verification of the publications of the customs authorities will provide certainty in the updating of different databases which will avoid additional risk in the inaccurate management of all information.

 

Tere González

Associate partner, EY México

E: teresa.gonzalez@mx.ey.com

 

 


 

 

 

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The ‘big four’ firm has threatened to legally pursue those behind the letter, which has been circulating on social media
The guidelines have been established in the wake of multiple tax scandals and controversies that have rocked the accounting profession
KPMG Netherlands’ former head of assurance also received a permanent bar and $150,000 fine; in other news, asset management firm BlackRock lost a $13.5bn UK tax appeal
The new, fully integrated office will also offer M&A, dispute resolution, IP and corporate tax services
The new guidance concerns a recent 1% excise tax on the repurchases of corporate stock for both US and certain foreign companies
Interpath has hired a managing partner from rival accounting firm BDO to lead the new operation
Survey results of over 28,000 in-house lawyers reveal that American in-house counsel place a higher value on the reputation of external advisers than their peers elsewhere
In an exclusive interview with ITR, Andrew Leigh also endorsed new legislation designed to prevent multinationals using complex corporate structures to reduce taxes
Nick Crama and Parwesh Bissumbhar, senior director and manager respectively at Alvarez & Marsal, outline practical advice for real estate managers to comply with DAC6 regulations
The finalists for the 13th annual awards revealed
Gift this article