Mexican FIBRAs: regulatory clarity needed on acquisitions by other FIBRAs

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

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

Looking at transfer pricing simplification is “obviously helpful”, but it should be done in line with current standards, a senior government figure reportedly said
The UK Government’s plans to close the tax gap via increased HM Revenue and Customs investment have failed to impress local tax advisers
Under the merged scheme for R&D tax relief introduced last year, rules on contracted out R&D have changed. James Dudbridge argues for a proactive approach when reviewing companies’ commercial arrangements
Cultural nuances could account for tax advisers’ perceived poor cost management, a local partner told ITR
Updated rules represent a significant shift in the Luxembourg TP landscape and emphasise the need for robust arm’s-length calculations, says Vanessa Ramos Ferrin of TransFair Pricing Solutions
KPMG Law US revolves around contract managed services and the US is the largest market for that, Stuart Bedford tells ITR in an exclusive interview
The US law firm’s tax counsel tells ITR about inspirations from a ‘legendary’ German tax scholar, perfecting riesling wine and what makes tax cool
Wopke Hoekstra also swore the EU would ‘hit back harder’ if faced with a trade war; in other news, a UK watchdog has launched an investigation into an audit completed by MHA
Other reasons included the complexity of reporting, resource constraints and interactions with tax administrations
Despite this boost for investors, the OECD also said that extensive reliance on income-based instruments across economies is concerning
Gift this article