Following up on Mexican beneficial owner obligations

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

ITR’s most interesting stories of the year covered ‘landmark’ legal battles, pillar two, AI’s relationship with transfer pricing and more
Chinwe Odimba-Chapman was announced as Michael Bates’ successor; in other news, a report has found a high level of BEPS compliance among OECD jurisdictions
The tool, which will automatically compute amount B returns, requires “only minimal data inputs”, according to the OECD
The rules are intended to implement the substance of an earlier OECD report in its entirety
While new technology won’t replace the human touch, it could help relieve companies’ staffing issues, EY’s David Helmer and Daren Campbell tell ITR
The firm said the financial growth came from increased demand for its AI services and global tax reform advice
Chrystia Freeland had also been the figurehead of Canada’s controversial digital services tax adoption, which stoked economic tensions with the US
Panama has no official position on pillar two so far and a move to implement in Costa Rica will face rejection, experts tell ITR
The KPMG partner tells ITR about Sri Lanka’s complex and evolving tax landscape, setting legal precedents through client work, and his vision for the future of tax
Overall turnover at the firm also reached a record £8 billion; in other news, Ashurst and Dentons announced senior tax partner hires
Gift this article