There are various types of corporate forms in Mexico, and the most common is the Sociedad Anonima (commonly referred to as an SA). There is also a Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada, also referred to as SRL, which is analogous to a US limited liability company. In respect of both types of entities, the liability of their shareholders and members are limited.
A more sophisticated form of SA is a Sociedad Anónima Promotora de Inversiones or SAPI. The SAPI has a more modern corporate governance framework than the SA and it is more flexible to set up differentiated rights related to dividend distribution among categories of shareholders.
From a Mexican tax perspective, such entities are taxed as a separate entity from their members/shareholders and have in general the same tax treatment (30% on profits) and have identical income recognition, applicable deductions and foreign tax credit rules.
There are no Mexican legal entities that are treated as transparent for tax purposes. However, there are certain “agreements” that give such treatment, such as the Fideicomiso (which has some similarities to the common law Trust).
Fideicomisos provide a flexible and efficient way to hold a separate patrimony from the settlor and their beneficiaries and represent an efficient form of administration of assets. They are often used in real estate and investment transactions.
From a tax perspective, Fideicomisos that generate mostly passive income are completely transparent; those who carry out business activities (active income – ie, sale of assets) will need to calculate the taxable profit and allocate such to the beneficiaries.
Specific examples of Fideicomisos are:
Mexican income tax law recognises tax transparency for foreign entities solely for the purposes of determining the taxable income generated by Mexican residents abroad from such entities.
Mexican law follows the “place of effective management” criterion to determine the Mexican tax residency of an entity. This refers to the location where key decision-makers, who control, manage, and operate the entity and its activities, are based. Consequently, a foreign entity is deemed a Mexican taxpayer if its place of effective management is in Mexico.
As for transparent foreign entities, their tax transparency is not recognised and will be taxed as any other legal entity (not considering that the tax effect is on their members/shareholders), apart from the exception outlined in 1.2 Transparent Entities.
Under most of the tax treaties that Mexico has in place, tax residency will also be determined by the place from which the company or entity is effectively managed. Tax transparency is not recognised under most of those treaties (there are certain exceptions such as the one with Germany). With respect to the Mexico-US tax treaty, a certain transparency effect is recognised for LLCs, as long as its members are resident in the US.
In case of a dual resident company, under most of the tax treaties entered into by Mexico, a mutual agreement procedure is required. The Mexico-US Tax Treaty will directly deny treaty benefits.
Incorporated businesses pay a 30% income tax rate.
According to Article 4-B of the Income Tax Law, Mexican entities must regard as taxable income (in some cases only the profits) the income generated abroad by tax transparent entities or legal vehicles, according to the degree of participation by the Mexican resident, even if such entities or legal vehicles do not distribute such income. The tax triggered will be 35% + 10% for dividend distribution.
If taxpayers have operations through these entities or legal vehicles (transparent or not) they will have to file a tax report before the Tax Administration Service. The income will be directly attributed to the Mexican taxpayer and the tax paid abroad by these entities or vehicles will be considered as paid by the Mexican resident only for the taxable income that was considered.
The tax paid will create a tax credit for the Mexican resident in the proportion that the income received by the entity or legal vehicle was considered by the taxpayer as taxable income.
Taxable Profits are calculated by considering all taxable income (on an accrual and worldwide basis) and reduced by authorised deductions (including the profit-sharing payment made in the last year).
Income encompasses all increases in wealth. Entities need also to consider inflationary gains. Dividends distributed from a Mexican entity will not be considered as income.
Normal deductions or business expenses are allowed (depreciation and amortisation of assets, cost of goods, interest payments, other expenses, etc). To qualify for these deductions, there are general requirements that must be fulfilled. These include ensuring that the expenses are properly documented, strictly necessary for the business’s operation, and supported by relevant invoices. Additionally, each type of deduction has specific requirements that must be met. For example, there are particular criteria for deductions related to bad debts, charitable contributions, and interest expenses.
Taxpayers are required to make advance payments of income tax on the 17th of each month; such advance payments should be made on the basis of an estimated annual taxable income. Advance payments are not required during the first year of operation of a business.
Mexico does not have specific incentives such as a patent box or special tax treatment exclusively designed for technology investments. However, Mexico, like many countries, has a general framework of tax incentives and deductions that may indirectly benefit technology-related investments and research and development (R&D) activities.
Some of the general incentives that could be relevant to technology investments in Mexico include deductions for R&D expenses incurred by businesses. Eligible expenses may include costs related to technological innovation and development.
Accelerated Depreciation
Businesses in Mexico may benefit from accelerated depreciation for certain assets, including technology-related equipment and machinery.
Maquila Programme
While not specific to technology, the Maquila programme in Mexico allows companies to operate manufacturing activities with certain tax benefits. This programme is often utilised by industries with significant technology components.
Investment Promotion Programmes
Mexico has various investment promotion programmes that provide general incentives for companies making investments in the country. While not technology-specific, these programmes may indirectly benefit technology-related investments.
When authorised deductions, in addition to the Participation of Workers in Profits (PTU) paid, exceed the accumulable income in a fiscal year, the difference is considered a fiscal loss for that year. This fiscal loss can be offset against the fiscal income of the following ten fiscal years until it is exhausted.
Additionally, if a company fails to offset the fiscal loss from previous years in a given fiscal period, when it had the opportunity to do so, it will forfeit the right to offset it in subsequent fiscal years, up to the amount that could have been utilised previously.
The right to offset tax losses exists provided there is a tax profit, and none of the circumstances limiting their offsetting are met: (i) a change in shareholders or partners exercising over 51% of the voting rights of the entity, or offsetting only against profits obtained from the same line of business in which the loss was generated in cases of mergers where the loss-making company acts as the merging entity; (ii) a prohibition on transferring losses in the case of a merger if the loss-making company acts as the merged entity; or (iii) the right to transfer them, exceptionally granted in the case of a split, depending on certain forms and amounts of transfer.
The tax authority may presume an improper transfer of the right to amortise tax losses when a taxpayer is involved in corporate restructurings or changes of shareholders, resulting in a significant decrease in its material capacity to operate.
This presumption is triggered if certain conditions are met, such as obtaining greater tax losses than the value of assets or a sudden increase in deductions from related-party transactions, among others. The taxpayer will be notified of this presumption and will have the opportunity to defend itself. If it fails to refute the facts, a list of affected taxpayers will be published, confirming the improper transfer of tax losses and the inadmissibility of their decrease. Taxpayers are given a period to regularise their situation before the authority can exercise its verification powers and impose penalties.
Taxpayers under the general regime can benefit from deductions such as accrued interest during the tax year without adjustment. To qualify for the deductibility of interest payments, the taxpayer must adhere to several conditions:
Income tax law imposes a limitation on interest deductibility, applying to the net interest amount (taxable accrued interest less deductible interest) exceeding 30% of adjusted taxable profit. This limitation only applies to taxpayers whose interest accrued from debt in the fiscal year exceeds MXN20,000,000.
This limitation does not apply to members of the financial system. Any non-deductible net interest will be able to be carried forward for up to ten years until the pending amount is finished.
Under thin capitalisation rules, interest paid by a Mexican resident to a non-resident related party is non-deductible for income tax purposes if the debt exceeds three times the equity of the Mexican subsidiary (thin capitalisation rules only apply to related-party transactions).
Limited tax grouping rules exist when Mexican entities holding 80% directly or indirectly of equity can apply for authorisation to offset losses against profits of other entities of the group for a period of three years, considering the deferred income payable at the end of such period.
Generally, capital gains from the sale of shares or other assets are considered part of the company’s taxable income. The basic rules for calculating capital gains on the sale of shares include deducting the cost of acquisition from the sale price. The resulting amount is then subject to corporate income tax.
There are no specific exemptions or relief for capital gains from the sale of shares under Mexican law. Specific tax treaties might offer relief.
Besides income tax, several other taxes may be payable by an incorporated business.
VAT
This is a consumption tax that is levied on the sale of goods, the provision of services, use of goods, and the importation of goods into Mexico. The standard rate is 16%, but there are reduced rates and exemptions for certain goods and services.
Special Tax on Production and Services (IEPS)
This is an excise tax on the production and sale of specific goods and services. It applies to items such as gasoline, diesel, tobacco, alcoholic beverages, and certain energy products and services.
Local Transfer Tax (ISAI)
This tax is levied on the acquisition of real estate and is typically paid by the buyer.
Social Security Quotas
Employers are required to contribute to social security and other employee-related taxes, including contributions to retirement funds and housing funds.
Payroll Tax
This is a local tax that is currently effective in the 32 states of Mexico and represents one of their principal sources of income.
This tax is levied on all employers for the payment of payroll or salaries – ie, it is imposed on employers for the labour relations they maintain, including the payment of salaries and other items corresponding to their obligations with their employees.
See 2.8 Other Taxes Payable by an Incorporated Business.
Closely held local businesses owned by individuals normally operate in a corporate form. In certain transactions, the use of a non-corporate form such as the Mexican trust or fideicomiso is common.
The corporate rate is 30% plus the 10% employee profit sharing rate. Individual professionals will be taxed at 35% (in certain cases a 2.5% special regime applies for individuals if their annual profits are lower than MXN3 million). Any dividend distribution will be subject to an extra 10%.
There are no specific rules that prevent closely held local corporations from accumulating earnings for investment purposes.
Capital gains are taxable by diminishing from the purchase price the tax basis adjusted by inflation and reducing it with certain adjustments that consider net retained earnings. There are certain variations on how to calculate the basis if the ownership period of the shares is less than 12 months.
Dividends are taxable for individuals at the applicable tax rate (maximum of 35%). The corporate tax rate paid (30%) at the level of the entity can be credited. There is an extra 10% applicable which needs to be withheld by the entity paying the dividend.
A tax rate of 10% is applicable on the net gain realised from the sale of shares in corporations on the Mexican stock exchange or other publicly traded companies.
Mexican entities that make payments to foreign entities or individuals are required to withhold and pay tax before the tax authorities on behalf of the recipient.
Dividend Distribution for Mexican Subsidiaries
If the dividend is paid to foreign residents it will be subject to an additional 10% withholding rate.
Capital Gains
The eventual sale of the shares of the Mexican Subsidiary will trigger a tax of 25% on the gross amount or 35% on the net profit if the non-resident has a representative in Mexico. A tax return related to the sale must be filed and a fiscal opinion obtained from a Mexican public accountant certifying that the reported profit is calculated correctly.
Interest
If a foreign shareholder granted a loan to the Mexican subsidiary, interest is considered to be sourced in Mexico where the capital is placed or invested in Mexico or where the party paying the interest is a Mexican resident or a non-resident with a permanent establishment.
Interest paid to a non-resident is subject to withholding tax at rates ranging from 4.9% to 35%.
A 4.9% rate applies to interest paid to foreign banks registered as banks in Mexico and resident in tax treaty countries and interest paid to non-resident financial institutions in which the federal government owns a percentage of the paid-up capital, provided certain conditions are satisfied and they are the beneficial owners of the interest. The 4.9% rate also applies to interest paid in respect of publicly traded securities in Mexico and securities publicly traded abroad through banks and stockbroking firms in a country that has concluded a tax treaty with Mexico; however if these conditions are not satisfied, the rate is 10%.
A 15% rate applies to interest paid to reinsurance companies and interest on finance leases.
A 21% rate applies to interest that is not subject to the 4.9% or 10% rates and interest paid to non-resident suppliers financing the acquisition of machinery and equipment that is included in the fixed assets of the acquirer.
A 40% rate applies to interest paid to a related party located in a tax haven.
A 35% rate applies in all other cases.
Royalties
Payments made for technical assistance, know-how, use of models, plans, formulae and similar technology transfer, including use of commercial, industrial or scientific information or equipment are considered royalties.
Royalties paid to non-Mexican residents are deemed Mexican-sourced when the payer is a Mexican resident for tax purposes. A 25% income tax withholding rate on the gross amount of the transaction would be applicable unless the rate is reduced under an applicable tax treaty.
Payments carried out by a Mexican subsidiary to foreign shareholders for the right to use a brand or technology would be considered royalties for income tax purposes and, generally, the former would have to withhold the corresponding income tax.
As of 2022, the concept of royalties has included the right to an image, specifying that for such purposes this right implies the use or concession of use of a copyright to a literary, artistic or scientific work.
In this regard, the tax treatment applied to royalties also extends to the taxable income resulting from the exploitation of the copyright associated with the image itself.
Know-How
The term “know-how” is considered the transfer of confidential information regarding industrial, commercial or scientific experience.
The payments derived from such transfer would be considered royalties subject to a 25% income tax rate. However, a preferential income tax rate provided in the relevant tax treaty could be applied.
Technical Assistance
Technical assistance is defined as the rendering of independent personal services whereby the provider undertakes to provide non-patentable knowledge, which does not involve the transmission of confidential information relating to industrial, commercial or scientific experience, and undertakes to participate with the provider in the application of such knowledge.
A 25% withholding tax rate is applicable to technical assistance payments.
In general, the different tax treaties entered into by Mexico do not specifically contemplate the tax treatment of technical assistance (except in the case of Belgium and Holland), so in general terms it should fall under the concept of business benefits (Article 7 of the treaties), independent personal services (Article 14 of the treaties) or other income (generally Article 21 of the treaties). If it is included in Article 7 or 14, the payments derived from it can only be subject to taxation in the state of residence and not in the state of source.
Recent Tax Court rulings have denied access to treaties principally on the grounds that technical assistance should not be considered a commercial activity for Tax Code purposes, but rather as a service of a civil nature, since the Commercial Code does not explicitly list technical assistance as an act of commerce; however, the list of commercial acts contained in the Commercial Code is not exhaustive.
Mexico has entered into several tax treaties with other countries to avoid double taxation and promote cross-border investments. The choice of tax treaty country for foreign investors depends on various factors, including the investor’s home country, the nature of the investment, and specific provisions of each treaty. The countries with which Mexico has entered into tax treaties commonly used by foreign investors include the United States of America, Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands.
The use of entities in treaty countries by non-treaty country residents, often known as “treaty shopping”, can sometimes be subject to scrutiny by Mexican tax authorities.
Mexican law contains general anti-avoidance rules that allow tax authorities to challenge transactions or arrangements that have the primary purpose of obtaining a tax benefit in violation of the principles of the tax laws.
Mexican authorities may scrutinise the substance and purpose of the arrangements to determine whether they comply with the intended purpose of tax treaties. If they find that the primary motive of the structure is tax avoidance rather than a genuine business purpose, they may challenge the arrangement and deny the treaty benefits.
For inbound investors operating through a local corporation in Mexico, several significant transfer pricing issues may arise. It is crucial for investors to be aware of these issues to ensure compliance with Mexican transfer pricing regulations. Some of the key transfer pricing issues are outlined below.
Documentation Requirements
Mexico has stringent documentation requirements for transfer pricing. Inbound investors need to maintain comprehensive documentation to support the pricing of transactions with related parties. This includes documentation on the selection of the transfer pricing method, comparability analysis, and financial information.
Comparability Analysis
Performing a robust comparability analysis is crucial to determine the appropriate transfer pricing method. The challenge lies in finding reliable and comparable data for benchmarking purposes. Differences in industry practices and economic conditions between Mexico and other countries can complicate the analysis.
Use of Profit Level Indicators (PLIs)
Determining the appropriate PLI for benchmarking can be complex.
In Mexico, the choice of PLI depends on the nature of the transaction, and identifying the most suitable indicator can be challenging for certain industries.
Intangibles and Royalties
Transfers of intangible assets and the calculation of royalties present specific transfer pricing challenges. Establishing the arm’s length pricing for the use of intangibles requires a careful analysis, and ensuring alignment with the OECD Guidelines is crucial.
Management and Service Fees
Determining the appropriate pricing for management and service fees charged by a foreign parent to its Mexican subsidiary is a common challenge. It requires demonstrating that the services provided add value and are consistent with arm’s length principles.
Profit Attribution to Permanent Establishments (PEs)
For multinational corporations with a presence in Mexico, attributing profits to a permanent establishment can be complex. It involves evaluating the functions performed, risks assumed, and assets employed by the PE within the overall business structure.
Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs)
Inbound investors may consider seeking Advance Pricing Agreements with the Mexican tax authorities to provide certainty on transfer pricing matters. However, the APA process can be time-consuming, and negotiating terms that satisfy both parties can be challenging.
Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR)
In line with international standards, Mexico requires the filing of Country-by-Country Reports for multinational groups exceeding certain revenue thresholds. Ensuring alignment with global reporting requirements and addressing potential discrepancies is essential.
Limited risk distribution arrangements are valid agreements whose supply chains have been structured and restructured. These types of transactions are normally subject to review and scrutiny by the tax authorities.
Mexico follows OECD standards with minimum variations.
Transfer pricing audits are definitely more aggressive and thorough nowadays. It is common for the tax administration to initiate transfer pricing audits and, if new information emerges, may reopen audits for earlier years.
Although Mexico has a robust set of rules and legislation governing MAPs in the practical sense, it is difficult for the tax authorities to agree to initiate one.
Compensation adjustments are valid in Mexico following certain rules and steps. Adequate documentation is crucial in these cases.
There are no substantial differences in the taxation regimes between local branches and local subsidiaries of non-local corporations in Mexico.
Capital gains from the sale of stock in a local corporation are taxed at 25% on the gross amount (purchase price) or there is an option to be taxed at 35% on the net gain provided certain requisites are met (such as appointing a local legal representative and obtaining an auditor opinion on how the net basis was calculated).
Furthermore, indirect sales are taxable if more than 50% of the accounting value of the foreign entity being sold is represented by immovable property located in Mexico.
Certain treaties can eliminate direct or indirect capital gains, depending on the ownership percentage and the time of ownership (normally more than 50% and more than 12 months).
When there is a change of control in a foreign holding company that possesses a subsidiary in Mexico, taxation in Mexico can apply to the sale of shares. This tax is applicable if more than 50% of the foreign holding’s accounting value is represented by immovable property located in Mexico. However, certain tax treaties may provide relief in such scenarios.
There are no specific rules governing how to determine the income of local affiliates owned by foreigners that are subject to taxation. Transfer pricing provisions will apply. There are certain rules applicable to Mexican entities with an IMMEX authorisation (manufacturers) where the annual profit must be determined based on a percentage of the cost or assets used in the manufacturing process.
Deductions on payments made by local affiliates for management and administrative expenses are allowed as long as transfer pricing rules are complied with, in which case a withholding tax is applied. Normally such payments are considered as business profits under a tax treaty.
The expense must be considered strictly indispensable for business operations and sufficiently documented to prove that the service was rendered.
Specific rules govern the allocation of expenses incurred by the non-local affiliate. These rules dictate how the expenses are distributed between the foreign entity and its Mexican subsidiary.
Related-party borrowing will be subject to transfer pricing rules and income deduction limitations as stated in 2.5 Imposed Limits on Deduction of Interest. Payments made to a related party or derived from a structured agreement will not be deductible items if the income for the counterparty is subject to a preferential tax regime or if the party that directly or indirectly receives the payment uses such payment to make other deductible payments to other members of the same group or derived from a structured agreement subject to a preferential tax regime.
The foreign income of local corporations is not exempt from corporate tax. Tax credits are available if certain requisites are met. Monthly advance payments shall not consider foreign income (it is only computed for the annual return).
Foreign income of local corporations is not exempt. Local expenses shall follow the general rules for deductions (strict indispensability, proper registration, materiality, etc) and the specific rules applicable to interest, royalties, etc.
Foreign dividends received by Mexican entities are treated as ordinary income and subject to the 30% tax rate. Income tax paid by the non-local subsidiary can be credited (some limitations apply). There is a second-tier indirect tax credit.
The use of intangibles developed by local corporations by non-local subsidiaries is subject to transfer pricing regulations and the arm’s length principle in Mexico. Thus a consideration for the use or the transfer will be required.
The tax authorities have issued non-binding criteria addressing the transfer of intangible assets abroad. According to this criteria, the deduction of royalties for licensing intangible assets that were transferred out of Mexico at a price below their arm’s length value is considered an improper tax practice.
This might qualify as a business restructure subject to further scrutiny under recent OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. Tax authorities, exercising their audit powers, scrutinise intercompany transactions, with a particular focus on intangible assets. The significance of functional and comparability analyses is emphasised in addressing such transactions.
Additionally, since 2020, the Mexican Tax Code has included a business purpose test. This empowers tax authorities to disregard artificial transactions lacking a business purpose when taxpayers derive a tax benefit greater than the reasonably expected economic benefit. Therefore, transactions involving the use of intangibles between local corporations and non-local subsidiaries should comply with transfer pricing regulations, ensuring that the pricing aligns with the arm’s length principle and serves a legitimate business purpose to avoid potential challenges from tax authorities.
A local entity will be taxed on the income (in some cases only the profits) generated abroad by a controlled non-local subsidiary, according to the participation of the Mexican resident, even if such entities do not distribute such income. The tax triggered will be 35% + 10% for the distribution of dividends.
These CFC rules are applicable if there is control and if the revenue obtained is not subject to tax or subject to a tax rate of less than 22.5% in the foreign country. Active business income will not be considered subject to these rules.
If taxpayers have operations through these entities, they will have to file a tax report with the Tax Administration Service.
The income will be attributed directly to the Mexican taxpayer and the tax paid abroad by these entities will be considered paid by the Mexican resident only for the taxable income taken into account.
The tax paid will generate a tax credit for the Mexican resident in the proportion that the income received by the entity or legal vehicle was considered taxable income by the taxpayer.
The exception of being considered a CFC when the taxpayer does not have “effective control” over the foreign entity still applies. Nevertheless, the rules to determine if there is effective control are substantially modified. Under these new rules there is effective control over the foreign entity if the taxpayer holds more than 50% of the shares or rights, which allows such taxpayer to obtain the profits or the assets in case of a capital reduction or liquidation.
To determine if the participation exceeds the 50% threshold, and therefore if effective control over the foreign entity exists, all rights owned by any related party or linked individuals shall be taken into account.
General anti-avoidance rules (GAAR) apply to transactions that lack a genuine business purpose and primarily aim to achieve a tax benefit. Under GAAR, if certain transactions with non-local affiliates are deemed to lack a substantive business purpose, they may be subject to a recalculation of their tax effects.
Local corporations are taxed on the gain from the sale of shares in non-local affiliates. The taxable income is determined by subtracting the average cost per share from the sale price per share. The average cost per share for shares issued by foreign resident entities is calculated based on the adjusted original amount of the shares, which includes the verified acquisition cost reduced by any reimbursements paid, with adjustments for inflation. Reimbursements paid include amortisations and capital reductions. However, taxpayers should only consider amortisations, reimbursements, or capital reductions applicable to shares that have not been cancelled due to these operations.
Tax authorities, in the exercise of their audit authority, are entitled to re-characterise any transaction that does not have a legitimate business reason and results in a tax benefit for the taxpayer. In such cases, the authorities can attribute to these transactions the tax effects that would have been expected had they been carried out to achieve a reasonable economic benefit.
For the application of the anti-avoidance rule, a “favourable opinion” of a committee (officials of the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit and the Tax Administration Service) must be issued. If such opinion is not issued within a two-month period, it will be considered as a negative resolution.
It is legally assumed, unless the taxpayer proves otherwise, that a transaction does not have a legitimate business reason when: (i) the measurable economic benefit is a smaller amount than the tax benefit obtained; or (ii) the reasonably expected economic benefit could have been achieved with fewer transactions, resulting in a higher tax effect (referred to as the fragmentation of operations).
Any reduction, elimination or temporary deferral is considered a tax benefit.
Tax authorities in Mexico are investing heavily in technological solutions to improve their ability to automatically access taxpayers’ information and gain a better understanding of their transactions.
Among the technological measures that have allowed for greater oversight of taxpayers are:
Utilising this advanced data analysis, tax authorities can efficiently detect inconsistencies within the electronic systems, prompting the issuance of “invitations” for further clarification. These invitations are not formal audits but serve as initial inquiries to address potential irregularities.
Also, the tax administration has identified specific sectors which are routinely audited (such as large taxpayers, retail, automotive, export-import activities, real estate, pharma, oil and gas).
As a member of the OECD, Mexico has been actively involved in the design and development of BEPS and has begun implementing many of the following recommended actions since 2014:
Mexico is a signatory party of the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI), under which Mexico elected to supplement the principal purpose test with a simplified limitation on benefits provision. On 12 October 2022, Mexico ratified the MLI, and finally on 15 March 2023, the Mexican Senate deposited the MLI with the OECD. The MLI came into force in Mexico on 1 January 2024, resulting in the amendment of several provisions of the tax treaties in force in Mexico.
Mexico has shown a commitment to addressing BEPS issues. The government aims to prevent multinational companies from shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions, and to ensure that they pay their fair share of taxes in Mexico.
With respect to Pillar One and Two, Mexico has participated in discussions but has not yet committed to their implementation. However, given the global momentum and Mexico’s active participation in international tax co-operation, it is possible that Pillar One and Two could be adopted in the future. If Mexico decides to implement Pillars One and Two, it would likely take some time to enact the necessary legislative and administrative changes.
The impact of implementing these measures would be significant, particularly for multinational companies operating in Mexico. It could result in increased tax revenues for the Mexican government, greater tax transparency, and a more level playing field for domestic companies. However, it could also mean additional compliance burdens for multinationals and possibly changes in their tax planning strategies.
Mexico has expressed its intention to apply these rules once adopted, with an estimated 100 organisations in Mexico falling within the scope of Pillar Two. Mexico’s tax treaties often include restrictions to prevent double taxation or the application of lower tax rates to certain income.
International tax has garnered increased attention in Mexico, especially with the implementation of BEPS recommendations. The actions taken by Mexico, such as amending various articles of the Tax Code and Income Tax Law to address issues like VAT for non-resident taxpayers, hybrid mechanisms, base erosion through financing operations, and aggressive tax planning, demonstrate a commitment to aligning with international standards. Additionally, the adoption of the Multilateral Instrument in 2022 further underscores Mexico’s commitment to enhancing tax transparency and preventing treaty abuse, which aligns with the broader goals of the BEPS initiative. Overall, the high public profile of international tax in Mexico is likely to drive continued efforts to implement BEPS recommendations effectively.
Balancing competitive tax policy objectives with the pressures of BEPS is a major challenge for any jurisdiction, including Mexico. Mexico, as a member of the OECD, is a major driver of BEPS action. The main challenge for Mexico is to remain competitive in the global market to attract investment and promote economic growth, which must go hand in hand with the implementation of BEPS measures, as such measures ensure tax equity/equality, protect the tax base and prevent tax evasion by multinational companies, which obviously has a positive impact on tax collection in Mexico.
The IMMEX or maquila regime can be considered a key feature of the Mexican competitive tax system, which might be more vulnerable than other areas of the Mexican tax regime.
Several amendments were included in the Mexican 2020 Tax reform, in line with BEPS Action 2 by introducing new anti-hybrid rules for entities or legal arrangements treated as fiscally transparent under foreign tax regulations.
Mexico has a worldwide system. Interest deductibility restrictions could discourage investment and increase financing costs/affect loans.
Mexico has a worldwide taxation system and has been using CFC rules for more than 25 years.
The limitations on benefits and anti-avoidance rules outlined by the authorities, particularly regarding presumptions of transactions lacking a business rationale and generating direct or indirect tax benefits, are likely to impact both inbound and outbound investors by adding an extra layer of compliance – ie, the need to have documents/information to prove that the economic benefit of a transaction surpasses its possible tax benefit.
In Mexico, changes suggested by BEPS in the transfer pricing area have not yet been adopted, such as those proposed in Action 13 – ie, the local file, master file and country-by-country reports. These changes were challenged, and the Mexican Supreme Court ruled in favour of the tax authorities.
Provisions for transparency and country-by-country reporting are welcome, but it is important that the rules governing them are minimally invasive and do not impose excessive burdens on taxpayers.
The Income Tax Law has established a new regime applicable to individuals engaged in business activities such as selling goods or providing services through digital platforms, computer applications, and similar technologies. It should be noted that the new regime is extended to cover hosting services, the sale of goods and any other service beyond transportation.
Under this new regime, intermediary entities, both resident and non-resident, facilitating transactions through these digital platforms are obligated to withhold income tax from service providers.Non-resident intermediaries must register with the Federal Taxpayer Registry as withholding agents and issue the required electronic invoices.
Mexico has implemented a new regime to tax digital services at a VAT rate of 16% when consideration is charged. The taxed services include downloading or accessing digital content, online clubs and dating pages, digital intermediation services, and distance learning or exercises.
As explained in 9.12 Taxation of Digital Economy Businesses, Mexico has imposed VAT rules related to digital taxation and a regulation for certain activities performed using digital platforms. There are currently no proposals to implement new reforms.
As explained in 6.4 Use of Intangibles by Non-local Subsidiaries,in Mexico the use by non-local subsidiaries of intangibles developed by local corporations is subject to transfer pricing regulations and the arm’s length principle.
Torre Chapultepec Uno
Av. Paseo de la Reforma 509
Piso 21
Col. Cuauhtémoc
Alcaldía Cuauhtémoc CP. 06500
CDMX Mexico
+52 55 5249 1800
+52 55 5249 1801
edgar.klee@haynesboone.com haynesboone.comMexico's Position Regarding the Term “business profits” and how its Relationship With the Model Convention and its Commentaries Could be Modified due to the Issuance of the Latest Jurisdictional Criterion
This article focuses on analysing how the latest jurisdictional criterion issued by a Mexican court may cause Mexico to deviate from what should be understood as “business profits” according to the Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (Model Convention) and its Commentaries issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as well as its tax treatment against Treaties to Avoid Double Taxation that Mexico has in force with other member countries of the OECD, which from our point of view could be interpreted as a violation of these treaties, having the same effects as those derived from what is known in international law as a “Tax Treaty Override”.
In order to arrive at our analysis and conclusion, it is first necessary to determine the scope of the concept of “business profits”, its evolution within the Model Convention and its Commentaries, and then to determine how Mexico's position has been modified as a result of the issuance of a recent jurisdictional criterion.
Business profits under the Model Convention
Article 3 of the Model Convention lists the definition of several terms employed throughout the Convention’s content, including in subparagraph 1 h) the term “business”, defined as “the performance of professional services and of other activities of an independent character”. However, the term “profits” is not included. Nevertheless, to define it we will refer to the Commentaries to the Model Convention, as will be developed later.
Nonetheless, income obtained from business profits is concretely regulated in Article 7 of the Model Convention, which states the following:
“Article 7
Business Profits
1. Profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits that are attributable to the permanent establishment in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 may be taxed in that other State. […]
4. Where profits include items of income which are dealt with separately in other Articles of this Convention, then the provisions of those Articles shall not be affected by the provisions of this Article.”
In this regard, the Model Convention provides for the taxation of business profits in the State of residence of the company, unless the company has a permanent establishment for the income attributable to it, in which case the latter State can tax such income without limitation in accordance with its domestic legislation.
Similarly, in accordance with the above, it should be considered that where business profits compromise income regulated separately in other Articles of the Model Convention, the provisions of those Articles shall not be affected by the provisions of Article 7. Conversely, it can be understood that those business profits that do not correspond to any type of income regulated separately in other Articles of the Model Convention, may be affected.
Having clarified the above, it is important to note that Mexico reserved the right to use its previous version, that is, the one included in the Model Convention immediately before the 2010 update.
In that sense, it should be noted that Paragraph 4 of Article 7 of the Model Convention updated in 2010 has the exact same text as Paragraph 7 of Article 7 of the Model Convention as it read before 22 July 2010. Therefore, all references included in this article shall be understood been made to said version.
As it can be appreciated from the previous transcript, Article 7 of the Model Convention does not define the term “business profits”, nor which incomes should be considered within its scope.
Notwithstanding the above, for each Article there is a detailed Commentary that is intended to illustrate its provisions and be of great assistance in the application and interpretation of the Convention and, in particular, in the settlement of any dispute.
Furthermore, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention) establishes in its Articles 31 and 32 that every treaty must be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose, having the possibility to resort to supplementary means of interpretation, especially to the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion.
To that extent and considering the provisions of the Vienna Convention, Commentaries on the Model Convention are to be considered as valid means of interpretation of tax treaties celebrated by OECD member countries.
Having noted the above, in order to define what is to be understood by “business profits” in terms of Article 7 of the Model Convention, we will refer to the Commentaries issued by the OECD.
Business profits under the Commentaries to the Model Convention
Commentaries 59, 60 and 62 to Paragraph 7 of Article 7 of the Model Convention establish the following:
“59. Although it has not been found necessary in the Convention to define the term “profits”, it should nevertheless be understood that the term when used in this Article and elsewhere in the Convention has a broad meaning including all income derived in carrying on an enterprise. Such a broad meaning corresponds to the use of the term made in the tax laws of most OECD member countries.”
“60. This interpretation of the term “profits”, however, may give rise to some uncertainty as to the application of the Convention. If the profits of an enterprise include categories of income which are treated separately in other Articles of the Convention, e.g. dividends, it may be asked whether the taxation of those profits is governed by the special Article on dividends etc., or by the provisions of this Article.”
“62. It has seemed desirable, however, to lay down a rule of interpretation in order to clarify the field of application of this Article in relation to the other Articles dealing with a specific category of income. In conformity with the practice generally adhered to in existing bilateral conventions, paragraph 7 gives first preference to the special Articles on dividends, interest etc. It follows from the rule that this Article will be applicable to business profits which do not belong to categories of income covered by the special Articles, (…). It is understood that the items of income covered by the special Articles may, subject to the provisions of the Convention, be taxed either separately, or as business profits, in conformity with the tax laws of the Contracting States.”
It follows that the term “profits” when used in this Article and elsewhere in the Model Convention has a broad meaning including “all income derived in carrying on an enterprise”.
Likewise, said Commentaries establish a rule of interpretation for the pertinence of Article 7, stating that it will be applicable to profits that do not belong to categories of income covered by special Articles of the Model Convention (ie, interests, dividends, royalties).
Considering the above, it is believed that the term “business profits” can be defined as “all income derived in carrying on an enterprise including those derived from the performance of professional services and of other activities of an independent character”.
Consequently, if a legal entity earns profits by means of its operation, including the provision of professional services and of other activities of an independent character, it must be decided whether these correspond to any of the incomes regulated separately by the Articles of the Model Convention. If not, they will be understood as business profits treated under Article 7.
Context on Article 7 of the Model Convention and Tax Treaty Override
Having pointed out the above, it is necessary to emphasize that Mexico did not reserve the right to apply the provisions of Article 7 of the Model Convention. In that sense, and as explained in this section, Mexico accepted the content of that Article, in terms of the context and the intention of the Contracting States in accordance with the Article itself, as well as the Commentaries, not being able to disregard them so pena of incurring in a “Tax Treaty Override”.
Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Model Convention states the following:
“Article 3
Definitions
[…]
2. As regards the application of the Convention at any time by a Contracting State, any term not defined therein shall, unless the context otherwise requires or the competent authorities agree to a different meaning pursuant to the provisions of Article 25, have the meaning that it has at that time under the law of that State for the purposes of the taxes to which the Convention applies, any meaning under the applicable tax laws of that State prevailing over a meaning given to the term under other laws of that State.”
The previous transcription provides that when a term is not defined under the Convention, the context consistent to its conclusion must be taken into account. And only in the event that the intended meaning cannot be deduced from said context, the domestic legislation of the respective State must be consulted.
In light of the above, Commentaries 11, 12 and 13 to Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Model Convention establish the following:
“11. This paragraph provides a general rule of interpretation for terms used in the Convention but not defined therein. However, the question arises which legislation must be referred to in order to determine the meaning of terms not defined in the Convention, the choice being between the legislation in force when the Convention was signed or that in force when the Convention is being applied, i.e. when the tax is imposed. The Committee on Fiscal Affairs concluded that the latter interpretation should prevail, and in 1995 amended the Model to make this point explicitly.
12. However, paragraph 2 specifies that this applies only if the context does not require an alternative interpretation. The context is determined in particular by the intention of the Contracting States when signing the Convention as well as the meaning given to the term in question in the legislation of the other Contracting State (an implicit reference to the principle of reciprocity on which the Convention is based). The wording of the Article therefore allows the competent authorities some leeway.
13. Consequently, the wording of paragraph 2 provides a satisfactory balance between, on the one hand, the need to ensure the permanency of commitments entered into by States when signing a convention (since a State should not be allowed to make a convention partially inoperative by amending afterwards in its domestic legislation the scope of terms not defined in the Convention) and, on the other hand, the need to be able to apply the Convention in a convenient and practical way over time (the need to refer to outdated concepts should be avoided).”
The terms used in the Convention in question, which are not defined by the Convention itself will, have a meaning which is to be inferred from the context in which the term is immersed. In this regard, the context is determined in particular by the intention of the Contracting States when signing the Convention.
Therefore, unless the context otherwise requires, that undefined term shall be given the meaning attributed to it by the domestic legislation of the State intending to apply that term. The above, with the aim of ensuring the permanency of commitments entered into by the States when signing a Convention.
It should be noted that Commentary 13 also states that “a State should not be allowed to make a convention partially inoperative by amending afterwards in its domestic legislation the scope of terms not defined in the Convention”, meaning that if any of the Contracting States include or modify in its domestic legislation the definition of a term not given in the Convention, it will be violating the commitment entered into with the other Contracting State when signing the Convention.
The above, since both Contracting States mutually undertake the obligation to respect and to apply the treaty provisions as negotiated, or as stated by the general principle of international law, pacta sunt servanda, which binds all parties to fulfil in good faith treaty obligations.
This situation has been defined by the OECD as a “Tax Treaty Override”, which refers to a situation where the domestic legislation of a State overrules provisions of either a single treaty or all treaties hitherto having had effect in that State. However, the OECD lists certain situations which do not involve an amendment in the domestic legislation but are similar to a Tax Treaty Override and may have the same effects, such as a court’s decision that deviates from the common interpretation of a provision based on the text of the treaty.
Considering the above, since Mexico accepted the content of Article 7 of the Model Convention in accordance with its Commentaries and context, it is believed that the definition of the term “business profits” as is clear from Articles 3 and 7 of the Model Convention and its Commentaries, covers “all income derived in carrying on an enterprise including those derived from the performance of professional services and of other activities of an independent character”.
Consequently, any subsequent amendment to its domestic legislation that overrules provisions of said Articles that have been negotiated and accepted by the Contracting States would be considered a “Tax Treaty Override”.
Now that the context in which States committed themselves to adopting the definition of the term “business profits” has been defined, the following section will analyse its evolution by including income from professional activities or other independent activities, which from 2000 onwards are treated as business profits, resulting from an economic activity.
Professional services as business profits
Pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the Preliminary Remarks to Article 7, the provisions of Article 14 were similar to those applicable to business profits, however Article 14 used the “fixed base” concept rather than “permanent establishment” since it had originally been thought that the latter concept should be reserved to commercial and industrial activities.
As there were no intended differences between how profits were computed and how tax was calculated according to which of Article 7 or 14 applied, Article 14 of the Model Convention was eliminated in 2000.
The deletion of Article 14 resulted in now dealing with income derived from professional services or other activities of an independent character under Article 7 as business profits. This was confirmed by the addition in Article 3 of the definition of the term “business”, which was previously approached.
It is important to point out that, although many conventions keep Article 14 within their text, none of the member countries of the OECD, including Mexico, reserved the right to continue to apply its content. Consequently, the amendment to the Model Convention has become effective in all treaties currently in force.
Despite this and derived from an interpretation totally contrary to what is established in the international tax legislation, Mexico has adopted a different position due to the recent issuance of a jurisdictional criterion which will be analysed in the following sections.
Business profits under Mexican jurisdictional criterion
On 17 May 2023, the plenary session of the Mexican Federal Tax Court (TFJA) approved jurisdictional criterion IX-J-SS-70.
It is worth mentioning that all precedents that gave rise to the jurisdictional criterion derived from the following assumption: a company resident in Mexico for tax purposes made payments to a resident in the Netherlands for the provision of technical assistance services in national territory.
Since, as a result of the 2000 amendment, income derived from professional services or other activities of an independent character is now dealt under Article 7, the Mexican resident company applied the provisions of Article 7 of the Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation between Mexico and the Netherlands (DTT MEX-NL), qualifying said payments as business profits.
Nevertheless, through jurisdictional criterion IX-J-SS-70, TFJA rejected said qualification by stating that technical assistance payments made by a resident in Mexico to a non-resident do not qualify as business profits under the DTT MEX-NL, being subject in Mexico to a 25% withholding tax rate.
As consequence, by implementing the jurisdictional criterion approved by the TFJA, any transaction involving technical assistance payments made by residents in Mexico to residents in the Netherlands will result in a double taxation, since both jurisdictions (Mexico and the Netherlands) will be imposing similar taxes on the same income.
The jurisdictional criterion was based on the following arguments:
Reviews on the jurisdictional criterion approved by TFJA
In view of the foregoing, it is considered that the decision of the TFJA is unfortunate, as it departs from Mexico's position in relation to the Model Convention and its Commentaries, as well as the Vienna Convention when issuing and approving the jurisdictional criterion subject to analysis, which are essential elements for determining the applicable tax treatment for technical assistance payments.
In light of the above, the following conclusions can be made of each legal argument made by the TFJA.
Regarding argument A of the TFJA, it is believed that the said decision is contrary to the DTT MEX-NL, the Commentaries on the Model Convention and the Vienna Convention by pointing out that the fact that technical assistance services income is not included in other Articles of the DTT MEX-NL does not necessarily mean that Article 7 should apply.
The foregoing since from its context, the term “business profits” is defined as “all income derived in carrying on an enterprise including those derived from the performance of professional services and of other activities of an independent character”. Therefore, all income derived due to the performance of technical assistance services falls within its scope.
With regard to arguments B, C, D and E, it can be opined that the TFJA´s interpretation of Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the DTT MEX-NL is incorrect, since it does not take into account Commentaries 11, 12 and 13 to said Paragraph, which expressly state that terms used in the Convention which are not defined by the Convention itself will, in the first place, have the meaning which is to be inferred from the context in which the term is immersed.
And only if, from the context no definition could be provided, the term shall be given the meaning attributed to it by the domestic legislation of the State intending to apply that term.
Therefore, since it is possible to define from the context what is to be understood by “business profits”, due to the analysis of Commentaries 59, 60 and 62 to Paragraph 7 of Article 7 of the Model Convention as explained above, it is not correct to define it by trying to apply in the first place the domestic legislation of the Contracting States, as executed by the TFJA.
There is an opinion that payments made by a resident in Mexico to a resident in the Netherlands for the provision of technical assistance services should be considered as business profits and should receive the tax treatment provided for in Article 7 of the DTT MEX-NL, since:
Nevertheless, assuming that technical assistance payments were not considered business profits, the TFJA overlooks that under the DTT MEX-NL, such income could be regulated under Article 14 (Independent Personal Services) which are not subject to withholding, or alternatively, under Article 21 (Other Income) that provides for a maximum withholding rate of 17.5%.
On the other hand, although the jurisdictional criterion does not form part of Mexico's domestic legislation, it is believed that it has the same effects of a Tax Treaty Override, since the interpretation that could be applied by the tax authorities on the basis of that jurisdictional criterion would render inoperable all tax treaties that Mexico has in force by deviating from the common interpretation of business profits and the income that should be considered within its scope.
That situation might give rise to the violation of all Contracting States’ intention and commitment when signing the Convention, according to Commentary 13 to Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Model Convention, which states the need to ensure the permanency of commitments entered into by states when signing a convention.
Additionally, from Normative Criterion 55/ISR/N issued by the Mexican Tax Authorities, it is inferred that the provision of Articles 175, Section VI of the MITL and 16 of the FTC is only applicable for the purposes of Title V “Non-tax residents with income from a source of wealth located in national territory” of the mentioned law.
Likewise, said criterion points out that for the purposes of Tax Treaties entered into by Mexico, the normative provision of domestic legislation applicable to define the term “business profits” corresponds to Rule 2.1.36 of the Miscellaneous Fiscal Resolution, or any that replaces it.
In this regard, Rule 2.1.36 contains the premises that must be followed in order to interpretate tax treaties, including Articles 31, 32 and 33 of the Vienna Convention, as well as the Commentaries to the OECD Model Convention.
That said, it is evident that the jurisdictional criterion approved by the TFJA violates the normative criterion issued by the Mexican Tax Authorities, by defining the term “business profits” under its domestic law and not under the Model Convention and its Commentaries, as well as the Vienna Convention.
Finally, it is important to mention that the jurisdictional criterion approved by the TFJA is binding for all chambers of said court, unless it contravenes any jurisdictional criterion issued by the Federal Judiciary Branch. In that sense, if the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice, any Federal District Court, or Federal Circuit Court issues a new jurisdictional criterion in an opposite direction, the jurisdictional criterion under analysis will lose effect.
In the meantime, it is very feasible that the analysed jurisdictional criterion could be applied by the Mexican Tax Authorities in transactions involving technical assistance services under the DTT MEX-NL or even other Tax Treaties signed by Mexico with similar provisions, obligating Mexican residents to withhold 25% of the received income.
It is recommended that an analysis of the transactions with the characteristics that have been mentioned throughout this article be carried out, in order to determine the possible contingencies that could derive from the application of the jurisdictional criterion issued by the TFJA.
Av. Paseo de la Reforma 509
18th floor
Cuauhtémoc
Mexico City
Mexico 06500
+52 55 5282 9063
info@smps.com.mx www.smpslegal.com