Mexico: Lack of business purpose as factor in determining sham transactions

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

Mexico: Lack of business purpose as factor in determining sham transactions

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_deloitte.png
The new CIT project will bring changes to the existing model

A recent court ruling in Mexico has enabled the tax authorities to dive deeper into taxpayer affairs to determine whether transactions have real substance. Carlos Ramírez & Víctor Masón of Deloitte Mexico explain why taxpayers should take note of this judgment.

Mexico's Superior Chamber of the Federal Administrative Court published a decision in November 2017 in which it concluded that the tax authorities can take into account the fact that a transaction lacks a business purpose when determining whether a transaction has substance. The principles of the court's decision will apply in cases where the tax authorities discover during a tax audit that the transaction is not reflected in the taxpayer's accounting books.

The court stated that even though Mexican law does not define the term "business purpose", the concept is related to the profit earnings of an enterprise and, therefore, the absence of a business purpose for a particular transaction can be a factor that is relevant in determining whether a transaction is genuine and whether it lacks a real economic effect other than to create a tax advantage.

According to the Federal Administrative Court, the tax authorities can rely on the lack of business purpose provided other facts are present that corroborate that the transaction never took place, such as whether the transaction is unusual or exceptional, there is inconsistent data and documentation, there is an absence of infrastructure or personnel to carry out the transaction, a lack of cash flow, etc. In such cases, the burden then shifts to the taxpayer to demonstrate that the relevant transaction does have substance. Failure to do so can result in an assessment and potential criminal liability, depending on the circumstances. However, it appears that the lack of business substance on its own (i.e. without corroborating other factors), would not be sufficient to consider a transaction to be a sham transaction.

It should be noted that the tax authorities will be able to make the determination that a transaction is simulated without the involvement of a civil court. Under Mexican law, the tax authorities are required to provide a statement to the civil court in cases where they intend to make a sham transaction determination.

Taxpayers should be aware of this decision of the Federal Administrative Court and ensure that they maintain appropriate records of all documentation and other evidence that demonstrates a business purpose for their transactions.

Carlos Ramírez and Víctor Masón

Deloitte Legal

Website: www.deloitte.com/mx

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Australian Taxation Office believes the Swedish furniture company has used TP to evade paying tax it owes
Supermarket chain Morrisons is facing a £17 million ($23 million) tax bill; in other news, Donald Trump has cut proposed tariffs
The controversial deal will allow US-parented groups to be carved out from key aspects of pillar two
Awards
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2027 World Tax rankings and the 2026 ITR Tax Awards globally
Pillar two was ‘weakened’ when it altered from a multinational convention agreement to simply national domestic law, Federico Bertocchi also argued
Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
The £7.4m buyout marks MHA’s latest acquisition since listing on the London Stock Exchange earlier this year
ITR’s most prolific stories of the year charted public pillar two spats, the continued fallout from the PwC Australia tax leaks scandal, and a headline tax fraud trial
The climbdowns pave the way for a side-by-side deal to be concluded this week, as per the US Treasury secretary’s expectation; in other news, Taft added a 10-partner tax team
Gift this article