Following up on Mexican beneficial owner obligations

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

Following up on Mexican beneficial owner obligations

Sponsored by

Logo.jpg
Multinationals are working to comply with beneficial ownership regulations in Mexico

Ángel Escalante and Juan Manuel Moran of Escalante & Asociados discuss the introduction of obligations for companies in Mexico to disclose their beneficial owner.

On January 1 2022, a new obligation related to the identification of the beneficial owner of legal entities and trusts, amongst others (obligated parties), came into effect with articles 32-B Ter through 32-B Quinquies of the Federal Tax Code (FTC). This enabled the tax authority to require this as a part of their accounting information.

 

For these purposes, the FTC defines the beneficial owner as the person or group of people that either:

 

  1. Directly, or by means of any legal act, obtains the benefit derived from its participation in a legal entity, a trust, or any other legal figure, as well as from any legal act. Alternatively, the person or group that ultimately exercises the rights of use, enjoyment, use, or disposal of an asset or service, on whose behalf a transaction is carried out, even if it does so on a contingent basis.

  2. Directly, indirectly, or contingently exercises control over a legal entity or trust. This, considering that the person or group exercises control over an entity when:

 

  • Imposing, directly or indirectly, decisions at general meetings of shareholders, partners, or equivalent bodies, or appointing or dismissing the majority of directors, administrators, or their equivalents.

 

  • Maintaining the ownership of the rights that allow, directly or indirectly, the exercise of voting rights in respect of more than 15% of the stock.

 

  • Directing, directly or indirectly, the administration, strategy, or main politics of a legal entity or trust.

 

Requirements for companies in scope

 

In line with the above, the obligated parties must comply, in general terms, with the following:

 

  • Implement internal reasonable control systems, properly documented, that allow obtaining and keeping the information on the identification of the beneficial owner as part of their accounting information.

 

  • Identify, verify, and validate the beneficial owner and, if applicable, the information regarding the chain of control.

 

  • Indicate the percentages of the participation of the beneficial owner in the capital of the legal entity, including the information related to the chain of ownership.

 

  • Obtain, keep, and maintain the availability of reliable, complete, adequate, accurate, and updated information on the beneficial owner, the chain of control, and the chain of ownership.

 

  • Provide, allow, and grant access to the tax authority to the information, records, data, and documents related to the controlling beneficiaries.

 

The risks of non-compliance

 

Non-compliance with the referred obligations could result in the imposition of fines that range from MXP 500,000 to MXP 2,000,000 ($25,000 to $100,000). 

 

In addition, the legal entity’s opinion regarding the compliance with tax provisions in terms of article 32-D of the CFF could be changed to ‘negative’. This would prevent the obligated parties from accessing many opportunities, including public biddings and contracting with government entities.

 

The scale of the fines that could be imposed on the obligated parties is significant. Therefore, it is important to keep up to date with such obligations, duly integrating and maintaining a specific file related to the beneficial owner. It is worth remembering that the information will most likely be required by the tax authority during audit procedures or even through invitation letters.

 

Legal entities that carry out vulnerable activities in terms of anti-money laundering dispositions may be better prepared to comply with these new obligations, since they already identify and store information regarding the beneficial owner of their clients. Therefore, they could, in principle, improve their systems and procedures to integrate a 360° compliance programme.

 

 

Ángel Escalante Carpio

Founding partner, Escalante & Asociados

E: escalante@escalante.legal 

Juan Manuel Morán 

Senior associate, Escalante & Asociados

E: jmmoran@escalante.legal 

 

 

 

 

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
The US president also unveiled a new 50% levy on copper imports; in other news, a UK wealth tax proposal has been criticised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies
Wim Wuyts, who had been head of the specialist tax network since 2017, is moving on to a new role with WTS’s Belgian member firm
MNEs are increasingly using algorithmic tools in TP. Sahasranshu Dash argues that data ethics should therefore plug directly into the TP design process
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales also queried whether HMRC resources could be better spent scrutinising larger entities
Grant Thornton’s Austria tax head likens his practice to an escape room, shares his football coaching ambitions, and explains why tax is cool
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2025 EMEA Tax Awards
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2025 Asia-Pacific Tax Awards
Gift this article