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 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 & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

One expert argues the ERS would be unlikely to improve taxpayers’ experience unless it comes with additional funding to hire more agents and staff
From pillar two and amount B to Apple’s headline EU Commission dispute, Martin Bonner and Yiwen Ping of Kreston Global argue that 2024’s key TP developments will inform 2025
Holland & Knight, Nelson Mullins and McCarter & English made the joint-most tax partner hires in the US last year, according to annual ITR Talent Tracker data
Despite a three-year-high in tax revenues generated from settling TP cases, HMRC reported a sharp fall in resolved MAP disputes
Inflexion’s proposed minority stake in Baker Tilly Netherlands could propel the firm in the Dutch market, CEO Ronald Hoeksel tells ITR
While the US’s dramatic exit from the OECD’s global tax deal naturally grabbed headlines, Trump’s premeditated move shouldn’t detract from pillar two’s lofty ambitions
The ‘big four’ firm’s audit of gambling company Entain is under the spotlight; in other news, Ireland shrugs off Trump’s rejection of pillar two
Mid-market European private equity house Inflexion, which also backs law firm DWF, has agreed to acquire a minority stake in the Dutch tax advisory firm
Donald Trump’s inauguration, pillar two, APAs and TP were all up for discussion as ITR spoke to Baker McKenzie’s two newly minted US partners
In-house teams that want a balance of internal control and external expertise for pillar two should seriously consider co-sourcing models, Russell Gammon of Tax Systems argues
Gift this article