MEXICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Jesús Aldrin Rojas, Miguel Ángel García Piña and Esteban Ollervides Toribio, QCG Transfer Pricing
This mechanism is particularly well suited for trans - fer pricing disputes, where the core disagreement typically concerns the selection and application of methods, the appropriateness of comparables, and the economic analysis underlying the arm’s length determination. At the judicial level, the taxpayer may file a conten - tious administrative lawsuit before the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA) without the need to first exhaust administrative remedies. While prior pay - ment of the tax assessment is not required, the fis - cal interest must be guaranteed in order to suspend enforcement actions (Articles 141 to 144 of the CFF), except in the case of the exclusive substantive trial, where no such guarantee is required. The lawsuit may be filed before the Regional Chambers of the TFJA or, where the case involves foreign trade operations, before the relevant Specialised Chamber. As amended in November 2025, Article 141 of the CFF now establishes a mandatory order for the types of guarantees that may be offered. Taxpayers are required to first offer a deposit certificate ( billete de depósito ), up to their economic capacity, before pro - ceeding to other forms of guarantee. Once the TFJA issues a ruling, the tax authority may file a fiscal review appeal. This is an exceptional rem - edy available when the ruling is unfavourable to the authority and the significance, amount and impact of the case justify it. If the ruling is unfavourable or only partially favourable to the taxpayer, the taxpayer may challenge it through a direct amparo lawsuit, as pro - vided in Articles 103 and 107 of the Constitution and Article 170 of the Amparo Law. This lawsuit is filed before the competent Collegiate Circuit Court and seeks to challenge the legality of the ruling, either due to substantive errors or significant procedural violations. In exceptional circumstances, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) may hear the case through a review appeal, where direct interpreta - tion of constitutional provisions is required or where the case is of special interest and significance (Article 107, Section IX of the Constitution, and Article 81 of the Amparo Law).
Additionally, in 2024 the General Law on Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms was approved; how - ever, its implementation remains pending. Note: The recent judicial reform has already been approved and is currently in the process of being implemented. This reform may affect judicial inde - pendence and could ultimately lead to institutional changes in the structure and functioning of the TFJA. 14. Judicial Precedent 14.1 Judicial Precedent on Transfer Pricing Transfer pricing jurisprudence has strengthened in recent years, although it is still in the process of con - solidation. It primarily derives from Articles 90, 179, and 180 of the Income Tax Law, interpreted in accord - ance with the OECD Guidelines. Court rulings have addressed issues such as the selection of methods, the burden of proof, functional analysis, and the limits of the tax authority’s actions. Relevant examples include the following. • Digital Record: 2024896. Heading: Transfer pricing. The tax authority must specifically substantiate and justify the selection of the method used to compare agreed prices and conditions. • Digital Record: 2020107. Heading: Transfer pricing. The taxpayer is responsible for proving the materi - ality of services provided by related parties. • Digital Record: 2013543. Heading: Transfer pricing. The tax authority cannot reject the transactional net margin method (TNMM) if the taxpayer justifies its selection and demonstrates stable profits. • Digital Record: 2013543. Heading: Informative returns for related parties. The obligation estab - lished in Article 76-A of the LISR, in effect as of 1 January 2016, reflects the international commit - ments assumed by the Mexican state. • Digital Record: 2014227. Heading: Informative returns for related parties. An indirect amparo lawsuit is inadmissible against the multilateral agreement between competent authorities on the exchange of country-by-country reports, as it does not directly contain regulatory provisions applica - ble to taxpayers.
158 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook