Tax planning is seen by many as the ultimate cause of countries' economic slowdowns, reduced social welfare, and even anti-competitive behaviour from economic agents, as evidenced in the OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Sharing (BEPS) Report and its Action Plan. It indeed seems to be the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse: Death itself.
However, Judge Learned Hand's conclusion, laid down in Gregory v. Helverin, still stands true: anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern that best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again, the courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.2
Indeed, legitimate business goals and transactions may often be arranged in more than one way, and it is possible to choose the one that is more efficient from a tax perspective. To do so, however, it is important to have a 360° perspective in order to comply with every rule that may come into play. For example, the substance of a transaction and compliance with the arm's-length standard are issues quite important to consider without question, but they seldom are the only ones. Adequate planning requires taking into account every possible legal and tax issue. In addition, planning should not rely on opacity, but rather on transparency and the possibility of scrutiny by the tax authority or a court.
The main purpose of this chapter is to review the elements of the Mexican tax legislation that might have an impact in a tax planning, a business plan, or revenues itself.
II LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS
Mainly inspired by the BEPS Action Plan and maybe by the US influence, Mexico has introduced rules aimed to spot the true essence of transactions and tax them accordingly. Naturally, this has a direct impact on the way planning is done. Interestingly enough, Mexico is not shifting from a formalistic approach towards a substance approach. Rather, formal requirements now co-exist with substance requirements, and failure to comply with any of them may equally lead to contingencies. We discuss the most important measures recently introduced about substance and business reason.
The most important development within the Mexican tax system that may affect tax planning is a concept that has been in place for a long time in other jurisdictions, but in Mexico is rather a novelty, created by case law: materiality.
Materiality has become a standard necessary in proof of indispensability. Under this test, taxpayers must be able to demonstrate that a transaction resulting in an otherwise deductible expense has actually taken place, regardless of whether it is entered into their accounting records or documented in an invoice issued by the relevant supplier.3 In other words, proof must be given that the goods acquired or the services received are true, and they represent some economic value to the taxpayer.
It is important to mention that from an evidence standpoint, it is often difficult to prove materiality as there is no statutory, regulatory or judicial guidance to do so. This is particularly true in the case of services, where there may be little or no evidence of the human activity concerned, even if the result thereof may be physically recognised. For example, if a service provider repairs a given piece of machinery, but fails to provide a malfunction report or a report of repairs performed, there may be little or no evidence at all that the machinery was, in fact, repaired, and, therefore, payment in exchange thereof may become non-deductible.
Consistently with the materiality test, on 9 December 2019, amendments to the Federal Tax Code were enacted, including the first general anti-abuse provision, based on business purpose. Accordingly, any transaction that has a tax benefit (tax reduction, deduction, credit, non-taxation, etc.) but lacks a business purpose will be given the tax effects that would correspond to the legal transactions that would have been carried out to obtain a 'reasonably expected economic benefit' by the taxpayer, which, of course, must be other than a fiscal one.
Further, the statute provides several rebuttable presumptions that lead to the conclusion that a given transaction has no business reason. For example, whenever the tax benefit achieved is greater than the economic benefit achieved with the transaction concerned.
In any case, however, such a conclusion may only be reached once a body composed of officials from the Ministry of Finance and the Tax Administration Service issues a favourable opinion, upon request of the corresponding examiner. Thereafter, the conclusion is notified to the taxpayer, so that he or she may be in a position to rebut it.
Nonetheless, this new provisions presents several challenges from an advisory standpoint, including the following: (1) there is no administrative or judicial experience with standards such as the 'business reason'; (2) there is no guidance as to what the sort of evidence would be required to meet this standard; and (3) the body described above is likely to be composed of career officials with little or no experience in a business environment.
So, from a planning perspective, it is now paramount to document as much as possible the business needs leading to a given transaction, and the way in which the transaction is able to meet such needs.
i Entity selection and business operations
The current developments in Mexican taxation do not allow any fixed set of planning mechanisms. They depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, which also vary along with the passage of time, given the pace of the economy and technology, among other factors. So, it would be impossible – and maybe futile – to address planning structures in particular.
First of all, to achieve efficiency in tax planning we need to first to keep in mind the parties subject to income tax. In Mexico the parties subject to tax are all the individuals and legal entities in the following cases:
- Mexican residents: on all of their income, regardless of the location of the source of wealth of this income;
- foreign residents who have a permanent establishment in Mexico: on income attributable to the permanent establishment; and
- foreign residents: on income from sources of wealth located in Mexican territory, whenever they do not have a permanent establishment in Mexico; or when they have a permanent establishment and the income is not attributable to it.
Once established who is subject to taxation, is important to mention that any Mexican entity is subject to the same tax regime, so the entity selection does not constitute a key step on tax planning in Mexico. Rather than focusing in the entity selection in Mexican tax planning, it is extremely important to focus on the source of the income.
Domestic income tax
To understand the elements that might have an impact within a tax structure we need first to understand the basics of Mexican corporate income tax, described below.
General tax regime
The tax regime established for the Mexican legal entities is provided by the Title II of the Income Tax Law (ITL). In general terms, these entities must calculate income tax by multiplying taxable income earned in a fiscal year by the 30 per cent rate, as shown below:
- (gross4 - deductions5) - employees' profit-sharing paid in the fiscal year = tax profit;
- tax profit - tax loss carry fowards = taxable income;
- taxable income x .30 = payable income tax.
Commonly, in order to achieve efficiency, taxpayers focus on deductible items and losses. To this end, however, it is necessary to consider general requirements and specific requirements, in addition to limitations, as described below.
Article 25 of the ITL provides a list of deductible items, such as rebates, cost of goods sold, net expenses, investments, non-performing credits and losses. However, any item must be strictly indispensable for the taxpayer's activity in order to be deductible, pursuant to Article 27(I) of the same statute.
There is, however, no legal definition of the concept 'strictly indispensable'. For this reason, case law has developed this concept. Indeed, the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice has interpreted this concept taking into account the purposes of each company and the specific expense in question, with the intention that the character of indispensable is linked to the achievement of the business purpose of each taxpayer.6
Thus, in order to determine whether the strict-indispensability test is fulfilled, the relevant expense must comply with three general elements, namely: (1) to be directly related to the taxpayer's business purpose; (2) to be necessary for the taxpayer's activity or its development; and (3) the lack thereof should result in a detriment to the taxpayer's activity and development.
More recently, the courts have developed from the strict-indispensability test, an additional element to be fulfilled in order for an expense to be deductible: the materiality of the transaction, that has already been described.
Tax losses are sustained whenever deductions are greater than gross income. A Tax loss sustained in a year may be carried forward to reduce the tax profit of the ten following years until it is depleted. No carry-back is allowed.
When in a given year a taxpayer fails to carry forward a tax loss, despite being able to do so, the taxpayer shall forfeit the right to do so in subsequent years up to the amount that could have been carried forward.
The ITL provides that foreign residents with no permanent establishment in Mexico earning items of income from Mexican sources of wealth may be subject to tax in this country. The source rules are set forth by the ITL as well. Further, the applicable rate depends on certain factors, such as the sort of item of income concerned. In addition, such rate may be reduced or wiped out entirely by a tax treaty, when applicable.
It is important to note that quite often the ITL provides that the tax must be paid through withholding, which must be performed by the payer in the transaction concerned. In such cases, withholding appropriately becomes an important issue as failure to do so may render the relevant expense non-deductible, in addition to the fact that the tax authority may claim the deficiency from the withholding party, as it is deemed to be jointly and severally liable for that tax under the relevant provisions.
So, when designing a transaction, it is of the utmost importance to determine whether the transaction yields income that may be deemed to arise from Mexican sources of wealth and if so, what would be the appropriate level of withholding.
Finally, it is important to mention as well that in many jurisdictions, there are vehicles that may work quite efficiently for a number of purposes. For example, Spain has the 'ETVE'. Likewise, Spain and other countries have the 'patent boxes'. From a Mexican perspective, however, it is important to make sure that those vehicles qualify as tax residents of the relevant jurisdiction when designing the relevant structure. Otherwise, Mexico could deny treaty benefits.
Likewise, it is important to analyse the tax treatment of such vehicles in their home country, as it may have an impact on the deductibility of any payments made to them by Mexican residents, under certain BEPS-related provisions recently enacted in Mexico.
Mexican tax legislation contains several rules governing and limiting the deduction of interests that have been introduced over the years to prevent abuses by taxpayers, including thin cap rules, rules on back-to-back loans (this concept will be developed in the cases Section of this chapter), and the newly-enacted limit on 30 per cent of EBITDA, also heavily based on the BEPS Action Plan.
Thin cap rules
Thin cap rules substantially prevent taxpayers from deducting interests associated with debts contracted with related parties residing abroad, which exceed three times the stockholders' equity.
To calculate the amount of the debts exceeding this threshold, the sum of the shareholders' equity at the beginning and at the end of the year shall be divided by two. The quotient thereof shall be then multiplied by three; and the result shall be finally subtracted from the annual average balance of all the taxpayer's interest-accruing debts.
If the annual average balance of the taxpayer's debts entered into with foreign resident related parties is lower than the excess amount of the debts referred to in the preceding paragraph, no interest accrued on those debts may be deducted. If the annual average balance of the debts entered into with foreign resident related parties is greater than the aforementioned excess, interest accrued from the debts entered into with the foreign resident related parties shall not be deductible in an amount equal to the result of multiplying the interest by the factor obtained by dividing the excess by the balance.
The following interest-bearing debts are excluded from this limitation: those assumed by members of the financial system when performing transactions related to their purpose and those assumed for the construction, operation or maintenance of productive infrastructure related to strategic areas for the country or the generation of electric power.
Limit on 30 per cent of EBITDA
This year, Subsection (XXXII) to Article 28 of the ITL was introduced. Under this new Subsection, the deduction of 'net interest' is limited to 30 per cent of the taxpayer's adjusted taxable income. This limitation includes any type of financing, with the exception of public infrastructure and projects for the exploration, extraction, transportation, storage or distribution of oil and hydrocarbons, among others. This limitation is not applicable either to members of the financial system regarding the operations related to their business purpose, or to the productive companies of the state (for example, PEMEX and CFE).
The amount of net interest that is not deductible in one year may be carried forward for the following 10 years until it is exhausted, to the extent that taxpayers keep a record thereof. For these purposes, these concepts are defined as follows. Net interest for the year means the amount resulting from reducing to the total payable interest of the fiscal year, the total income from accrued interest within the fiscal year in question. This rule will not apply to a de minimis threshold of 20 million pesos of interest accrued during a tax year individually or as a group. The adjusted taxable income will be the amount that results from adding to the fiscal profit of the year its total interest expense accrued for the year plus the year's total amount deducted for fixed assets, deferred expenses, deferred charges and disbursements made in preoperative periods.
It is important to note that this new limitation is generally applicable in addition to and not in lieu of the other anti-avoidance rules described herein, either general or specific.
ii Common ownership: group structures and intercompany transactions
Articles 179 et al of the ITL provide that legal entities residing in Mexico that enter into transactions with a foreign resident related party must calculate their gross income and authorised deductions derived therefrom, using the prices or consideration that would have been agreed by independent parties in comparable transactions. Otherwise, the Mexican tax authority is empowered to reassess the income and deductions.
In other words, the arm's-length standard must be met in related party transactions. In order to determine the arm's-length price, a functional analysis must be performed and certain transfer pricing methods must be used. The analysis and methods replicate those recommended by the OECD in its Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Tax Administrations and Multinational Enterprise to a very large extent.
Accordingly, whenever designing a given transaction between related parties that may result in some form of a tax reduction, careful attention must be given to making sure that the transaction is necessary and that it has a sound business purpose, as explained before, but also that the conditions agreed therein are consistent with the arm's-length standard.
In this regard, it is important to note that the Mexican tax authority is increasingly scrutinising intra-group transactions to verify compliance with the arm's-length standard with the associated risk of very large contingencies. Accordingly, when designing a structure, it is advisable to take a proactive approach by analysing the convenience of risk-mitigation strategies, such as requesting an advanced pricing agreement or even a bilateral advanced pricing agreement.
Ownership structure of related parties
When restructuring a group either within itself or for the purpose of bringing in new investors, it is of the utmost importance to consider that this reorganisation could seriously limit the use of an otherwise effective tax attribute used for planning purposes: losses.
In Mexico, the transmission of losses is highly regulated and limited, as it is considered that this sort of arrangement is one of the most typical ways in which otherwise profitable companies reduce their tax liabilities. Some of those limitations are described below.
Limitations in cases of spin offs and mergers
Tax losses of a company cannot be transferred to another entity, except in the case of merger and spin-offs.
In the event of a merger, the merging entity may use tax losses pending to be carried forward at the time of the merger only to offset tax profits from the same businesses in which the losses were sustained.
In spin-offs, if the original company primarily conducted commercial activities, tax loss carry-forwards shall be divided between the original company and the spun-off companies in proportion to the division of the total value of inventories and accounts receivable related to the commercial activities of the original company.
If the original company primarily conducted other entrepreneurial activities, the tax loss carry-forwards shall be divided between the original company and the spun-off companies in the proportion to the division of the fixed assets. To calculate the proportion referred to in this paragraph, investments in real property not related to the principal activity shall be excluded.7
Limitations in cases of change of control
In the case of a change in the partners or shareholders that control a company that has tax loss carry-forwards, and the sum of the company's income in the three last years is less than the amount, updated for inflation, of those losses at the end of the last year before the change in partners or shareholders, the company may carry forward losses only to offset tax profits corresponding to the same business lines in which the losses were sustained. For these purposes, income declared in the financial statements for the period in question, approved by the shareholders' meeting shall be considered.
A change of the partners or shareholders that control a company shall be deemed to exist when direct or indirect holders of more than 50 per cent of the voting shares or ownership interest of the company in question have changed, in one or more acts carried out in a period of three years8
This does not apply to changes of partners or shareholders as the result of an inheritance, donation, corporate reorganisation, or merger or spin-off not considered to be a transfer of property provided that, in the event of a reorganisation, merger or spin-off, the direct or indirect partners or shareholders that controlled the company prior to said acts continue to do so afterwards.
Undue transmission of losses
The authority may presume that an undue transmission of tax losses was made when, during the analysis of information from its databases, it finds that the taxpayer who sustained the losses was part of a restructuring, spin-offs or merger, or underwent a change in shareholders, and as a result, this taxpayer ceases to be part of the group it used to belong to. This rebuttable presumption shall be available whenever the taxpayer that sustained the losses meets one of the following conditions:
- tax losses sustained in any of the three tax years following incorporation are greater than assets, and more than half of its deductions resulted from transactions with related parties;
- tax losses sustained after the three tax years following incorporation, derived from the fact that more than half of its deductions come from transactions between related parties, and they have increased by more than 50 per cent compared to those incurred in the tax year immediately preceding;
- a reduction in more than 50 per cent in its physical capacity to perform its main activity in the tax years subsequent to the year in which a tax loss is sustained, as a result of the transfer of all or part of its assets through restructuring, a spin off or merger, or because these assets were transferred to related parties;
- whenever losses are sustained, and there is a transfer of property, which includes the segregation of property rights, without considering whether the segregation was taken into account while determining the cost of acquisition.
- whenever losses are sustained and there is a change in the depreciation rate of investments under the ITL, before at least 50 per cent of the investments is depreciated; and
- whenever losses are sustained and there are deductible items whose corresponding consideration was secured with negotiable instruments, and this debt was extinguished through means other than those set forth in the ITL.9
In any of those cases, opportunity will be given to taxpayers to rebut this presumption, although from an advisory perspective it is advisable to take a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach.
International intercompany transactions
Mexican legislation has very strict and specific rules involving tax havens and transparent entities, so is important to analyse while developing a tax structure whether the planned transaction renders income subject to preferential tax regimes.
In this regard, is important to mention that income subject to preferential tax regimes shall be income not subject to tax abroad or subject to an income tax lower than 75 per cent of the income tax that would be triggered and paid in Mexico (30 per cent rate).
In those cases, there is also a rebuttable presumption that transactions between Mexican residents and corporations or entities subject to a preferential tax regime are made between related parties at conditions inconsistent with the arm's-length standard.
In addition, income earned from Mexican sources of wealth by foreign persons residing in preferential tax regimes that are related to a Mexican resident payer shall be subject to a 40 per cent withholding rate on a gross basis.
So, when dealing with preferential tax regimes (tax havens), it is necessary to consider that the expense associated with a given transaction may not be deductible if the parties concerned fail to rebut the presumption that this transaction is inconsistent with the arm's length standard. Further, it is necessary to take into account that the highest possible withholding rate under the ITL may be applied to this sort of transaction.
iii Third-party transactions
Sales of shares or assets for cash
In cases of dispositions of shares or securities that represent the ownership of assets, the source of wealth shall be considered to be located in Mexican territory when the person who issued the shares or securities is a Mexican resident or when more than 50 per cent of the accounting value of the shares or securities derives directly or indirectly from real properties located in the country. The tax shall be calculated by applying the 25 per cent rate to the total amount of the transaction, without any deductions. In certain cases, however, taxpayers may elect to be taxed at the 35 per cent rate on the gain.
In cases where a buyer may elect between buying shares or the underlying assets, the interests of the parties must be balanced.
The seller, for example, will want to sell whatever has a higher basis, to detonate a lower profit. The buyer, on the other hand, should consider that if he or she buys shares, the purchase price cannot be deducted and it must become part of the cost of the shares for a subsequent sale, while an investment in assets would generally be deductible.
In those cases, it is also necessary to consider that a sale of shares would certainly entail that the companies' contingencies would be tagged alone, while it might not be the case in an asset deal, despite the fact that the Mexican tax law provides that purchasers of going concerns may be held jointly and severally liable for previous tax liabilities.
Tax-free or tax-deferred transactions
Only in the case of reorganisations of corporations that belong to the same group, the tax authorities may authorise the deferral of the tax payment for the gain on the disposition of shares within the group. In these cases, the deferred tax shall be paid within the 15 days following the date on which a subsequent disposition is carried out resulting in the exclusion from the group of the shares referred to in the corresponding authorisation, and the payment shall be updated from the time it was incurred until it is made. The disposition value of the shares that must be considered to calculate the gain shall be the value that would have been used between independent parties in comparable transactions or the value indicated by an appraisal practiced by the tax authorities.
The authorisations hall only be granted before the reorganisation, provided that the consideration stemming from the disposition consists solely of an exchange of shares issued by the corporation that purchases the shares being transferred, and provided that the purchaser and transferor are not subject to a preferential tax regime and do not reside in a country with which Mexico does not have a broad agreement for the exchange of tax information.
We must note, however, than certain tax treaties afford exemptions in cases of corporate reorganisations within the same group where no cash consideration is paid. As a result, the deferral under the statute should be considered a solution of last resort.
III INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS AND LOCAL RESPONSES
i OECD-G20 BEPS initiative
On 9 December 2019, amendments to the ITL and FFC were enacted. Many of those amendments were added to reflect BEPS actions to prevent abuses based on international transactions.
To reflect BEPS Action 7, the concept of 'permanent establishment' was modified to prevent avoidance through the fragmentation of operations and the abuse of exceptions applicable to independent agents and the performance of previous and auxiliary activities.
Specifically, dependent agents trigger a permanent establishment if they usually develop the negotiations that lead to the conclusion of contracts. In addition, it will be presumed that an agent is not independent when acting exclusively or almost exclusively for related parties.
Measures against hybrid mechanisms
The foreign tax credit for income tax purposes will now be denied to Mexican residents if: (1) the credit is indirect (not incurred directly by the taxpayer) and the payment of the dividend or distributable profit was deductible for the payer; or (2) the credit is direct and the tax in question is also creditable in another country or jurisdiction.
Recently-enacted reporting obligations
Pursuant to certain amendments to the Federal Tax Code enacted this year, an obligation was established on taxpayers and on tax advisers to disclose certain tax planning devices, namely any that can generate, directly or indirectly, a tax benefit in Mexico and have any of the characteristics identified as risk areas.
Once this information is disclosed, tax authorities may request additional information from tax advisers or taxpayers.
Foreign transparent legal entities and foreign legal figures
Through amendments to the ITL this regime was divided into (1) transparent entities and legal figures and (2) preferential tax regimes (REFIPRES), as follows:
- transparent entities and legal figures: Income earned through this regime must be recognised by Mexican residents; and
- REFIPRES: Income earned in preferential tax regimes must be recognised on an immediate basis and on a scheduler system.
ii EU proposals on taxation of the digital economy
On 21 March 2018, the European Commission issued two proposals intended to ensure that digitalised business activities are taxed in a fair way: (1) common corporate tax; and (2) digital services tax. As the world moves in this direction, Mexico responded with the following measures.
Through the reform dated 9 December 2019, a section was added that is applicable for individuals with business activities that sell goods or provide services through technological platforms, computer applications or similes that provide intermediation services between third parties that are suppliers of goods or services and clients.
The foregoing is to tax the income they earn through digital platforms for the performance of the aforementioned activities, including those payments they receive for any additional concept through them.
Value added tax
The provision of digital services by residents abroad without a permanent establishment in Mexico may be subject to Mexican VAT. The new provisions establish the categories of digital services subject to the tax, the criteria to consider whether the recipient of the digital service is in Mexico, the obligations of digital service providers residing abroad without a Mexican permanent establishment, and the credit of VAT by the recipients, among others.
iii Tax treaties
Mexico is part of a wide network of treaties to prevent double taxation, with almost 70 treaties in force and several more at different stages prior to becoming in force. To take advantage of them, reviewing the requirements to qualify for the protection of the treaty, as well as fully defining the type of 10transaction to be carried out, have primary relevance.
It is essential to consider that the fundamental purpose of the treaties is to prevent double taxation and, if appropriate, to apply the benefits thereof through lower withholding rates than those established in the local legislation; however, the anti-abuse rules that have been added to local legislation should not be overlooked.
Therefore, it will be of utmost importance that the transactions provide a reasonable business purpose and not only seek the benefits of the treaty.
Recent changes to and outlook for treaty network
On 7 June 2017, Mexico signed the MLI. Its entry into force does not replace the bilateral treaties concluded by Mexico, but rather aims to simultaneously implement measures developed by the BEPS project. The amendments derived from that implementation will be different for each treaty, since the MLI will be applied according to the notifications and reserves made by each jurisdiction through their positions.
The MLI is pending ratification in the Mexican Congress.
IV RECENT CASES
i Perceived abuses
For Mexican tax purposes, back-to-back loans are transactions through which one person provides cash, goods, or services to another person, who in turn, directly or indirectly, provides cash, goods, or services to the former person or to a related party thereof. Back-to-back loans are also transactions in which one person extends financing and the credit is guaranteed by cash, cash deposits, shares or debt instruments of any kind from a related party or from the same borrower, to the extent that the credit is guaranteed in this manner. Interest from back-to-back loans is recharacterised as dividends, and therefore, it is not deductible.
Unfortunately, the definition of back-to-back loan seems to be all-encompassing so that almost any transaction may fall within its scope. In this regard, we must note that in a recent case, a taxpayer subject to an examination argued in court that this definition should be interpreted consistently with the financial definition of a back-to-back loan, which is narrower, and that the definition should be applied only whenever there is the intent to artificially reduce taxation. Nevertheless, the court ruled that the tax definition of a back-to-back loan is an anti-avoidance provision that does require to be associated to the financial definition thereof and whose applicability should not be subject to proving the taxpayer's intent.10
Case law on deduction of publicity
Up until recently, the general approach with regard to publicity expenses made by a licensee of a given trademark was that they were deductible because these expenses were necessary to promote the sales of the products under the same trademark.
However, the tax authority in certain examinations contested this position on the grounds that these expenses benefited the owner (and licensor) of the relevant trademark rather than the licensee.
These contradictory positions were heard by the Federal Court of Administrative Justice, which upheld the tax authority's view, unfortunately.11 It is important to note, however, that this court ruling is not binding for the tax authority or any court, including this one, in other matters. Nonetheless, in similar situations, it is quite likely that the tax authority will deny the deductibility of the relevant publicity expenses, and the outcome in the event of litigation is uncertain.
Thus, from an advisory standpoint it is necessary to take into consideration the terms of this ruling, when structuring not only publicity expenses, but also licensing agreements themselves.
Non-binding criteria on deduction of royalties stemming from intangibles originated in Mexico.
The Mexican tax authority is empowered to issue non-binding criteria, so that taxpayers know its position with regard to certain structures that are considered abusive in its eyes. From a practical standpoint, although these criteria are not binding to taxpayers, they make taxpayers know that if they adopt a position contrary to these criteria, it will certainly be contested by the authority, and, therefore, the matter is likely to be ultimately solved by a court in litigation.
For deduction of royalties, note the following non-binding criteria:
- Royalties paid to related parties residing abroad for the use or temporary enjoyment of intangible assets originated in Mexico; previously owned by the taxpayer or any of its related parties resident in Mexico; and transferred for no consideration or for consideration that is inconsistent with market standards, should not be deducted, since the need for migrating the assets and the subsequent payment of royalties is unjustified.
- Investments in intangible assets originated in Mexico should not be deducted, when they are acquired from a related party residing abroad or this related party changes its tax residence to Mexico, unless said related party had acquired those investments from an independent party and proves to have actually paid the acquisition cost thereof.
- Investments in intangible assets originated in Mexico should not be deducted, when they are acquired from a third party who in turn has acquired them from a related party residing abroad.12
V OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS
In Mexico, taxpayers may arrange their affairs so that they pay the least amount of taxes. As Judge Learned Hand said in 1934 in the US, there is no patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. However, in doing so, taxpayers must be mindful of a number of limitations and requirements, both general and specific
None of those requirements is more important than others. They are all equally important, and failure to comply with any of them may result in burdensome contingencies. So, proper planning requires a 360° perspective on all these issues in order to align them with the relevant business objectives.
Nowadays, proper planning cannot rely on opacity, but rather on the assumption that it may (and will) be subject to scrutiny, and, therefore, it must be supported by evidence and sound legal judgment.
1 Mario Barrera-Vázquez is a partner and Catalina Mandujano-Ortiz is as associate at Thompson & Knight LLP.
2 Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465 (1935).
3 'Facultades de comprobación. Al ejercerlas la autoridad fiscal puede corroborar la autenticidad de las actividades o actos realizados por el contribuyente, a fin de determinar la procedencia de sus pretensiones, sin necesidad de llevar a cabo previamente el procedimiento relativo a la presunción de inexistencia de las operaciones previsto en el artículo 69-B del Código Fiscal de la Federación', 67 S. J. F. 2186 (10ª época 2019).
4 Gross income is any kind of income from whatever source derived.
5 Deductions are all those expenses necessary for the development of the taxpayer's business. As a general rule, expenses whose benefit does not extend beyond the year in question are fully deductible in that same year. Expenses whose benefits extend beyond a single fiscal year, such as fixed assets, deferred expenses and deferred charges, are subject to depreciation, typically under a straight-line method. In those cases, the depreciation rate depends on the item in question and the industry involved.
6 'Renta. Interpretación del término 'estrictamente indispensables' a que se refiere el artículo 31, fracción I de la Ley del impuesto relativo (Legislación vigente en 2002)' XX S. J. F. 565 (9ª época 2004).
7 See Articles 58 and 59 of the ITL.
8 id., Article 58.
9 See Article 69B bis of the Federal Tax Code.
10 'Renta. El término 'créditos respaldados' contenido en la fracción V del artículo 92 de la Ley del impuesto relativo (vigente en el 2007), tiene un propósito antielusión o antiabuso (Legislación vigente hasta el 1 de octubre de 2007)' 69 S. J. F. 4637 (10ª época 2019).
11 'Gastos de propaganda y publicidad. su deducción es improcedente, al no ser estrictamente indispensables para la empresa que vende productos bajo marcas cuyo uso y explotación le fueron otorgados mediante un contrato de licencia no exclusiva'. Revista del Tribunal Federal de Justicia Adminstrativa, (July, 2019), page 285.
12 Non-binding criteria 4/ISR/NV, provided within Annex 3 of the General miscellaneous tax provisions published on 28 December 2019 in the Official Gazette.