Mexican FIBRAs: regulatory clarity needed on acquisitions by other FIBRAs

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Mexican FIBRAs: regulatory clarity needed on acquisitions by other FIBRAs

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-ritch-muller.png
house-5902665.jpg

The interest of other FIBRAs in a potential acquisition of the Terrafina real estate investment trust highlights a lack of taxation guidance in such transactions, say Oscar López Velarde and Regina Albornoz of Ritch Mueller

The real estate industry in Mexico is witnessing a remarkable upsurge, primarily fuelled by the nearshoring effect. As international funds seek lucrative investment opportunities, especially in industrial facilities along the Mexican border, a significant trend is emerging: the aggressive pursuit of existing portfolios of Mexican real estate investment trusts, known as FIBRAs. Among these, Terrafina, a FIBRA originally managed by Prudential, stands out as a prime target in a highly competitive bidding process involving major investors, including other FIBRAs.

The potential acquisition of one FIBRA by another is a hot topic, but it also brings a plethora of tax implications to the fore. Several FIBRAs have proposed an exchange offer for existing holders of Terrafina’s certificates, which suggests that these FIBRAs could end up owning Terrafina. This situation has stirred up numerous tax-related questions, as the Mexican tax framework does not explicitly address investments carried out by FIBRAs in other FIBRAs or the implications of their potential delisting, a scenario that some acquiring FIBRAs have proposed if they secure a majority of the certificates.

The FIBRA regime in Mexico is designed so that no taxes are levied at the level of the public vehicle itself; instead, taxes are collected through withholding tax. The primary investors in FIBRAs –Mexican and foreign pension plans – are typically exempt from such withholding tax. Additionally, foreign residents and Mexican individuals are exempt from tax on any capital gains from the sale of FIBRA certificates.

However, in the absence of specific regulations, a FIBRA holding certificates issued by another FIBRA could encounter several tax risks, such as the following:

  • Mandatory distributions and withholding taxes – the annual taxable income of a subsidiary FIBRA might be subject to a 30% withholding tax rate. This could inadvertently lead to taxation for Mexican and foreign pension plans, which are supposed to be tax exempt. Moreover, this might result in double taxation for other investors, who might face a subsequent withholding tax when the holding FIBRA distributes these amounts.

  • Capital gains taxes – Mexican individuals and non-Mexican residents (with the exception of foreign pension plans) might be liable to paying taxes on the capital gains from the sale of certificates issued by the subsidiary FIBRA.

Delisting the FIBRA

A possible solution suggested by many is the delisting of the subsidiary FIBRA. However, delisting a FIBRA or losing its FIBRA status might trigger a taxable transfer of all assets owned by the FIBRA to the certificate holders. The laws and regulations currently do not address this issue, which poses significant practical challenges for implementation.

The delisting of a FIBRA could represent a taxable event for income tax and VAT, a consideration that appears to be overlooked in most public bids aiming to acquire Terrafina.

The transactions and negotiations thus highlight the urgent need for regulatory clarity to navigate the complex tax landscape surrounding the acquisition of FIBRAs by other FIBRAs. Without clear guidelines, investors and the entities involved face a myriad of potential tax complications that could impact the feasibility and attractiveness of such transactions in the burgeoning Mexican real estate market.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Foreign companies operating in Libya face source-based taxation even without a local presence. Multinationals must understand compliance obligations, withholding risks, and treaty relief to avoid costly surprises
Hotel La Tour had argued that VAT should be recoverable as a result of proceeds being used for a taxable business activity
Tax professionals are still going to be needed, but AI will make it easier than starting from zero, EY’s global tax disputes leader Luis Coronado tells ITR
AI and assisting clients with navigating global tax reform contributed to the uptick in turnover, the firm said
In a post on X, Scott Bessent urged dissenting countries to the US/OECD side-by-side arrangement to ‘join the consensus’ to get a deal over the line
A new transatlantic firm under the name of Winston Taylor is expected to go live in May 2026 with more than 1,400 lawyers and 20 offices
As ITR’s exclusive data uncovers in-house dissatisfaction with case management, advisers cite Italy’s arcane tax rules
The new guidance is not meant to reflect a substantial change to UK law, but the requirement that tax advice is ‘likely to be correct’ imposes unrealistic expectations
Taylor Wessing, whose most recent UK revenues were £283.7m, would become part of a £1.23bn firm post combination
China and a clutch of EU nations have voiced dissent after Estonia shot down the US side-by-side deal; in other news, HMRC has awarded companies contracts to help close the tax gap
Gift this article