Mexico: Clarification of the term “standardised software” for tax treaty purposes

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

Mexico: Clarification of the term “standardised software” for tax treaty purposes

cuellar.jpg

lugo.jpg

David Cuellar


Sergio Lugo

On December 28 2012, the Mexican tax authorities published the MiscellaneousTax Regulations for fiscal year 2013, including a new rule intended to clarify the concept "standardised software" for purposes of interpreting article 12 (royalty payments) of the tax treaties signed by Mexico and also in light of Mexico's view that payments for the use of non-standardised software generally qualify as royalties. In general terms, Mexico follows the OECD Model Tax Convention to elaborate tax treaties with other jurisdictions and applies the commentaries on the OECD Model Tax Convention as a legal authority to interpret tax treaties. According to paragraph 28 of the commentaries on article 12, Mexico holds the position that payments related to software are classified as royalties when less than the full rights to the software are transferred; however, this rule should not be applicable in the following cases:

  • Payments for the use of copyrights on software for commercial exploitation if, and only if, the payment is made for the right to distribute standardised software copies and to the extent such copyrights do not include the right to customise or reproduce such software.

  • Payments for the use of copyrights for the sole use and benefit of the purchaser if, and only if, the software is completely standardised and not adapted/tailored to the purchaser.

In this context, new rule I.2.1.23 provides that standardised software includes the "commercial off the shelf (COTS)" software which is granted homogeneously and massively to any person in the market. In addition, rule I.2.1.23 provides that software which is specific or special should not qualify as standardised. For these purposes, specific or special software includes the following:

  • Software somehow adapted for the purchaser/user. When the software was standardised at the beginning but then adapted for the use of the purchaser/acquirer, such software should be considered as specific or special (and therefore not standardised) as from the moment the adaptation takes place.

  • Software designed, developed or produced for one user or a group of users, for the author or the person who designed, developed or produced the software.

In light of the recent clarification of the term "standardised software", multinational companies should carefully analyse each transaction on a case-by-case basis, including a comprehensive analysis of the corresponding agreements and the technical characteristics of the software to determine any potential tax consequences in Mexico.

David Cuellar (david.cuellar@mx.pwc.com) and Sergio Lugo (sergio.lugo@mx.pwc.com)
PwC

Tel: +52 55 5263 5816

Fax: +52 55 5263 6010

Website: www.pwc.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Kingsley Napley’s claimants are arguing that taxing the provision of education breaches the European Convention on Human Rights
While pillar two can progress without the US, it won’t reach the same heights without American involvement, argues Renáta Bláhová, founding partner of BMB Partners Taxand
There are unanswered questions as to how foreign investors could reclaim money via tax credits, advisers suggested
Amid an ever-changing tax environment, India’s advisory market is bustling with competition ahead of the 2025 World Tax rankings and ITR Awards
The deal comes after PwC had accused Paul McNab of using confidential information; in other news, McDermott hired a new London tax head from a US rival
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
Gift this article