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 2025

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 threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
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
Gift this article