Private Wealth 2023

Last Updated August 10, 2023

Mexico

Law and Practice

Author



ZG MANUEL TRON CONSULTORES SC is a small and highly specialised law firm, dealing with tax and estate matters from our single office in Mexico City. We offer sophisticated tax advice on domestic and international matters, for both individuals and corporations. On international dealings we have ample experience in inbound and outbound ventures, and our client base includes Mexican and foreign investors. We also advise and represent taxpayers before federal tax authorities in Mexico, including representation in negotiation for private ruling letters, tax controversy, audits, and mediation procedures. In partnership with other specialised firms, we are also involved in providing both advice and representation to taxpayers on criminal tax matters and general tax litigation as well. We have ample experience concerning advice and structuring on domestic and international estate and succession planning for Mexican resident individuals and their families, and for financial, insurance and trust institutions.

Mexico has both federal and state taxes which may affect individuals, estates, trusts, and foundations.

Federal and State Taxation

State or local taxes concern mostly real property acquisition transactions, and property and payroll taxes; these taxes, including their rates and exemptions, vary from state to state for each of the 32 that exist in the country. The transaction cost of the tax on real estate acquisitions and the required notarial and registration fees range between 8% and 10% of the value of the property; these costs are charged to the acquirer and should always be considered.

At the federal level, the main taxes are income tax (IT) and value-added tax (VAT).

VAT applies to most transfers of property at the general rate of 16% and usually becomes a cost to be considered in asset acquisitions or disposals; real estate property is only taxable on the value of constructions (not the land) and only if those constructions are non-residential.

Mexican IT includes all type of income, including capital gains, gifts and successions-derived income.

Estate and Gift Taxes

There are no specific estate or gift taxes; estates as such are not considered taxpayers. IT applies to income received by Mexican resident individuals through a succession or a result of a gift up to a rate of 35% unless an exemption is available.

Non-resident taxpayers may also be taxed on income received through succession or gifts. Income will be taxed when obtained in kind, and only in the case of shares of stock in Mexican resident entities or real estate property located within the country; the tax is payable at a rate of 25% on the gross amount of the income (ie, the value of the shares or property).

Income from Inheritance

Mexico has a general exemption of IT on inheritance income for Mexican tax-resident individuals, as long as the recipient of the income obtains it following a proper inheritance procedure (either in Mexico or abroad); this income is fully tax-exempt, regardless of its amount, or the existence (or lack of it) of a relationship with the deceased.

If the estate includes shares of stock in Mexican companies or real estate located in Mexico, the tax exemption does not apply to any heir who is not a resident of Mexico, and therefore is subject to the 25% tax.

Income from Gifts (Donations)

Gifts are generally taxed as income in the hands of resident individuals, up to the 35% rate (it is a progressive rate), when the amount exceeds the equivalent of approximately USD5,000 per annum.

There is a total tax exemption regardless of the amount donated in case of gifts between spouses and gifts between ascendants and descendants.

This tax exemption is also applicable when the recipient of the gift is a non-resident, if that person is either a spouse or relative (ie, ascendant or descendant) of the person making the gift.

There are no specific procedures used as income tax planning mechanisms for Mexican residents.

In case of a change of tax residence from Mexico to another jurisdiction, as long as the person is not moving to a tax haven jurisdiction (one in which there is no IT, or in which the applicable IT is less than 75% of the Mexican IT) the person will not have to file the annual tax return corresponding to the year in which the change of residence was made. In fact, such individuals are prohibited from filing the said tax return.

Considering that in some cases the IT is only payable at the time of filing of the annual tax return (in April of the following year), no Mexican IT would be paid on certain items of income received during the last year of tax residence in Mexico; if the jurisdiction to which the change is being made does not tax income received before January 1st of the first year in which the person becomes a resident. In such circumstances, there could potentially be no taxation in either jurisdiction.

If the person is moving to a tax haven jurisdiction, the law establishes that the change of tax residence will only be deemed to occur five years after the change was actually made.

Non-residents and Non-citizens

In Mexico, citizenship is not a factor that determines the taxation system to which a person is subject. Both citizens and non-citizens of Mexico are treated equally for federal tax purposes.

However, a distinction is made depending on whether a person is a resident of the country for tax purposes. Mexican citizenship only carries the presumption of a person being also a resident for tax purposes in Mexico but is not absolute and admits Mexican citizens being non-residents for tax purposes.

Non-citizens Owning Real Estate in Mexico

While mining activities and the acquisition of land for that purpose have specific restrictions for non-Mexicans, non-citizens are generally allowed to own real estate property in Mexico, except in the so-called “restricted zones”. The restricted zones are those located within one hundred kilometres (approximately 62 miles) of the borders and fifty kilometres (approximately 31 miles) from the beach.

Non-citizens usually acquire real estate in coastal areas where popular resorts are located through fideicomisos (the Mexican equivalent of a trust) in which the Mexican fiduciary is the owner of the real estate, and the non-citizen is a beneficiary of the use of the property. For tax purposes these fideicomisos are transparent and the beneficiaries are deemed owners of the property, so they must recognise rental income, if any, and gains from sales.

Rental Income of Non-residents

Income from real estate located in Mexico obtained by non-residents for tax purposes in Mexico is taxable at the rate of 25% on the gross amount received. Payment of IT on this type of income is to be withheld, if paid by a resident for tax purposes in Mexico, or directly paid by the non-resident to the tax authorities if income is paid by another non-resident.

In cases of real estate property held through a fideicomiso, the fiduciary will be obligated to collect and pay the tax.

Mexico has more than 55 international treaties in force to prevent double taxation; most of those establish preferential treatments for income derived from, among other sources, real estate property located within Mexico.

Timesharing Agreements

The Mexican IT law establishes a tax for those non-residents who obtain income from real estate located in Mexico through timesharing activities, including the granting of the right to use or enjoy a property, provide lodging services or even the selling of timeshare units or memberships.

The tax is calculated by applying the 25% rate on the gross amount of income obtained, with the tax withheld if paid by a resident for tax purposes in Mexico, or directly paid by the non-resident to the tax authorities if the income is paid by another non-resident.

If the non-resident appoints a representative in Mexico for tax purposes, the tax may be calculated at the 35% rate on the actual gain obtained by the non-resident from the timesharing activities. There are specific rules as to the calculation of the taxable gain, and the resulting tax shall be paid by the appointed representative.

Gains from Sales by Non-residents

Non-residents selling real estate property in Mexico (including the sales made through a fideicomiso) are obligated to pay IT on the sale-related income.

The tax is calculated by applying the 25% rate on the gross amount of the sales price, with the tax withheld if paid by a resident for tax purposes in Mexico, or directly paid by the non-resident to the tax authorities if the sales price is paid by another non-resident.

If the non-resident appoints a representative in Mexico for tax purposes, the tax may be calculated at the 35% rate on the actual gain obtained by the non-resident from the sale. There are specific rules as to the calculation of the taxable gain, and the resulting tax shall be paid by the appointed representative.

Income from Acquisition of Real Estate Property

When a non-resident acquires real estate property located in Mexico at a price that is 10% (or more) smaller than an appraisal made by the tax authorities, the non-resident is obligated to pay IT at the rate of 25% on the amount of the difference between the purchase price and the appraisal.

The acquisition for free (ie a gift or donation) is also taxable at the rate of 25% as a general rule. The tax exemption described in 1.2 Exemptions applies when the non-resident recipient of the gift is either a spouse or relative (ie, ascendant or descendant) of the person making the gift.

Modifications to Tax Laws

Tax laws in Mexico require a specific very formalistic procedure to be modified, repealed, or adopted. Any proposal must be filed by the executive branch or a member of Congress before the Chamber of Representatives; if the proposal is approved it has to go to the Senate for further approval and publication is made afterwards by the executive branch.

Modifications to tax laws (and to laws in general) cannot be retroactive as a matter of constitutional law. Article 14 of the Mexican Constitution expressly prohibits the retroactive effects of laws, except if a benefit is obtained by it.

Mexico has a long-standing tradition to carry out a yearly review of its tax laws when the annual federal budget is being prepared. Usually, the changes relate to formal requirements, new sanctions, and anti-avoidance provisions trying to prevent further tax evasion.

Since the adoption of an international policy reaching out to conclude double taxation treaties, the substantial provisions have remained stable.

In addition, the treaty network helps to ensure permanence of tax provisions.

Taxation of Inheritance and Gift Income

However, there is a relevant change being discussed, consisting of the elimination of the tax exemptions on inheritance and gifts described in 1.2 Exemptions. This proposed change is still at the planning stage and no formal proposal has been presented to Congress; it is worth noting that several similar proposals (at least six) have previously been put forth but were not approved by Congress.

The likelihood of this exemption being repealed is high since the governing party (MORENA), which is behind this proposal, has a majority in both federal Congress chambers.

Mexico is extremely active in the fight against abuses/loopholes in the tax laws; it openly promotes international exchanges of information for tax purposes and is willing to use, under its own rules, the information received from other tax authorities in the world.

Mexico exchanges information automatically (FATCA and CRS) but is also active in the request of information for purposes of audits being conducted. In Mexico, there is no public beneficial owner register.

High net worth individuals and families have been the target of recent years’ exchanges of information, which the Mexican tax authorities use to question investment structures held in other countries, usually with tax deferral/saving purposes.

In recent cases, the Mexican authorities have classified the use of investment structures held in other countries (such as split trust/share or unite trust structures) as sham (simulated) transactions and have initiated criminal actions against taxpayers.

General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR)

Mexico has enacted several provisions to fight tax avoidance; besides the fight to prevent tax fraud (a clearly illegal activity), Mexico introduced a General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) under which the tax authorities are empowered to recharacterise acts or agreements if not motivated by a valid business purpose. A new Article 5-A was added to the Federal Tax Code to implement these provisions.

Common Reporting Standard (CRS)

Mexico has openly adopted and subscribed to the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) following the guidelines established by the OECD, adding to Mexican domestic laws the required provisions to implement the collection, exchange, and processing of tax-related information.

Mexico is currently exchanging information with more than 60 countries on a yearly basis (this is a personal estimate based on different commentaries made by public officers; no official information is available as to this number).

Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)

Mexico was one of the first countries to accept and implement FATCA; this was made based upon the international treaty entered into with the United States for the exchange of information in 1989.

The first year in which information was effectively exchanged was 2015, when, according to the revenue authorities, more than 110,000 bank registries of Mexican nationals were sent to the Mexican authorities.

Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters

Mexico has been a signatory of this convention since 2011; this convention, combined with the treaties for the exchange of information, allow the Mexican authorities to exchange information with more than 100 countries around the world.

International Treaties for the Exchange of Information on Tax Matters

Mexico has 14 specific international treaties for the exchange of information on tax matters. The first was entered into with the United States in 1989. Mexico follows the OECD model for the adoption of this type of international treaty.

Mexican patriarchs (and matriarchs as well) are often reluctant to relinquish control of family assets to the younger generation; this provokes many conflicts both during the elders’ old age and throughout the succession process.

Mexican successions (if not very fine-tuned and planned) typically centre more on the control of the estate during and after the probate, rather than on safekeeping the assets and maintaining their productivity.

Many family enterprises and businesses have been lost during the succession process; sour experiences have motivated many universities and other think tanks to establish courses and graduate studies programmes regarding succession in Latin families in general, and Mexican families in particular.

In the face of a potential tax on inheritance and gifts (see 1.5 Stability of the Estate and Transfer Tax Laws), different planning strategies have been designed to allow the productive assets to be transferred to the younger generations while benefiting from the existing tax exemptions, but without losing control over the assets and keeping direct access to the yields or benefits generated by those assets. 

The intricate current network of exchange of information treaties, new and improved GAARs (both domestic and international), the numerous leaks and private information robberies (such as the case in Panama with Mossack Fonseca) and a quite extended social movement demanding higher taxes for wealthy families have complicated international planning activity enormously.

Mexico is no exception; the tax authorities are scrutinising the effective taxation of family members in different jurisdictions, and if the taxation level is not “enough”, the domestic authorities then believe they should be entitled to collect their “fair share” of taxes (regardless of the law and its strict application).

When dealing with international planning for a Mexican family one should be aware of the distinct risk of becoming jointly accused of wrongdoing if the authorities do not like the planning strategy, even if it is completely legal and properly executed.

Under current law, tax advisers, lawyers, accountants, and bankers may find themselves ensnared in allegations of tax evasion and organised crime. The penalties are severe, and most worryingly, those accused may have to undergo legal proceedings without the right to bail.

Mexico has no forced heirship laws.

Under Mexican law, any person is absolutely free to decide who the heirs of his or her estate will be. That being said, there are some exceptions worth noting:

  • minors have the right to alimony at least until they reach 18 years of age; and
  • older parents of the deceased have the same right to alimony that minor descendants have.

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico ruled that, if a partner in a couple – whether married or not – would have been entitled to a 50% division of assets in the event of divorce, then the same logic should apply upon the death of one partner, with the surviving partner inheriting 50% of the estate. This ruling was decided and made public, but the details of the ruling are not available yet, so a lot of questions remain unanswered.

Therefore, when carrying out planning for a Mexican family it is important to properly structure the marital economic agreement to prevent unexpected, undesired and expensive results.

Marital Property Regimes

Under Mexican law, there are two different regimes to be chosen by the parties to a marriage:

  • separated assets; and
  • conjugal partnership (community property).

The choice must be made at the time of formalising the marriage. In the absence of an explicit choice, the community property regime will be applied by default.

Separated Assets

If the couple decides to adopt this regime, each spouse will remain the sole owner of the assets acquired by her or him. However, for any assets not specifically or conceptually identified, a community property regime will be presumed.

However, there is a rule in many civil codes in Mexico (it is a local matter, therefore, each of the 32 states has its own civil rules) which establishes that, in case of divorce, if one of the spouses only performed housework while the other was the breadwinner, notwithstanding the fact that the breadwinner may be the nominal owner of all the assets (house, investments, cars, et cetera), the judge will split the assets equally between the two. This rule only applies under this marital property regime.

Community Property

Presently, the community property regime is less frequently chosen, largely due to a lack of knowledge about its benefits and workings. This lack of adoption, particularly among high net worth families, is somewhat perplexing given the potential advantages it can offer in terms of estate planning and preservation of family wealth.

This community property regime (or conjugal partnership as the law calls it) allows the spouses, at any time during the marriage, to establish which assets belong to each one, which assets to be acquired in the future will not be commonly owned (it could be goods acquired through inheritance from a family member, or donated by the parents to one of them) and how to dissolve the partnership in case of divorce: in other words, a prenuptial agreement.

This is particularly useful when the assets of the family include shares in family businesses that the family wants to keep among direct descendants, or similar situations involving specific real estate properties or cash gifts to one or the other.

Although increasingly used in recent years, the community property regime still remains a less common choice.

Renegotiation of Marital Property Regime

While it can be challenging, it is possible to change the marital property regime through a renegotiation after the wedding without the intention of ending the marriage. Both spouses must mutually agree to the change. Depending on the state, the change may require the approval of a judge or simply execution before a notary public. In both cases, the change will be recorded in the state’s civil registry.

This renegotiation can be beneficial for succession planning during the lifetime of the parents and when their children are grown up and of marriageable age, ensuring certain assets stay within the bloodline.

Asset Disposition under the Different Property Regimes

Persons married under a community property regime do need to have their spouse’s consent to dispose of an asset, waive a right or give away property.

The same is true for goods commonly owned in a separation of assets regime.

It is common practice to include recitals from parties to contracts clearly stating their marital status and liberty to dispose of assets.

Cost Basis of Transferred Property for Proper Consideration

Under Mexican law, the tax basis or cost basis of an asset, which has been subject to a transfer for a fair market value consideration, will have, in the hands of the purchaser, a cost basis equal to the purchase price.

Cost Basis of Property Transferred Without Consideration

In the case of transfers without consideration, the resulting tax basis will depend on the transfer having been taxable for the acquirer of the asset or not:

  • If the transfer was a taxable event for the acquirer of the asset, the new tax basis will be equal to the tax paid as a consequence of the transaction.
  • In cases of transfers without consideration (which are not taxable for the acquirer) of the asset, such as in the case of a gift between spouses or ascendants and descendants or in the case of inheritance, there are specific rules for shares and real estate property, which establish that the cost basis of the acquired asset will be inherited from the donor or the deceased.
  • In the case of transfers without consideration (which are not taxable for the acquirer) of assets different from shares or real estate property, there is no expressly stated rule, thus the assets so acquired should be treated as having as cost basis their fair market value at the time of the transfer.

Under the currently applicable rules and tax exemptions (please see 1.2 Exemptions) most transfers to younger generations may be executed tax-free, either through donations from the parents or inheritance.

That being said, the problem which is usually present in the case of donations is that the parents find it hard to relinquish control over the assets and the loss of income from revenue-generating assets.

Therefore, a series of planning techniques have been developed, including the donations of monetary assets with a deferred delivery or the reshaping of companies to allow for the reclassification of a series of shares, which may allow the transfer of the bulk of the shares while the parents retain voting control and receive most of the dividends. 

There are no special rules for digital assets. The general rules previously explained are also applicable.

Fideicomiso (Mexican Trust)

In Mexico, there is a widely used instrument for tax and estate planning purposes called a “fideicomiso” which is essentially a trust, only governed by a set of different rules.

Under the tax rules, a fideicomiso is transparent and the beneficiaries are deemed owners of the underlying assets, therefore subject to tax consequences for any redemption, sale, or transfer of the assets, and for any income derived therefrom.

Foundations

Foundations and similar concepts are not succession tools but rather a limited type of entity used for charitable purposes, severely limited as to what you can do through them. One thing that you cannot do is transfer wealth to be later enjoyed by someone else; any assets contributed to a foundation have to remain there for the sole charitable purpose for which the foundation was created.

Trusts

Non-Mexican trusts are generally recognised by Mexican law, but not always by Mexican tax officials. As a general principle of international private law, non-Mexican legal constructions or agreements will be recognised except when doing so would be against Mexican public order principles. 

Mexican fideicomisos are not trusts – a conclusion reached by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in Mexico many years ago. Therefore, trusts are not subject to the Mexican fideicomiso tax rules.

Until 2019, trusts, either when being treated as transparent by the jurisdiction of formation or when used by Mexican residents in a structure generating income subject to a preferential tax regime (ie, one in which there is no IT or the IT of the jurisdiction is less than 75% of the Mexican IT), trusts were disregarded and the income attributable to the Mexican investor.

In 2020, a new set of rules were added to the IT Law which deal with trusts and other transparent forms of investments for tax purposes regardless of the use or of the tax treatment of the jurisdiction of formation; in essence the rules say:

  • If a Mexican tax resident derives income through a trust, the trust will be disregarded, and the Mexican resident will be liable for tax on the income received.
  • If a trust obtains income from a Mexican source, it will be deemed a separate non-transparent entity, subject to tax under Mexican law.

This dual treatment, applied concurrently, can create confusion and complications, particularly for Mexican residents who are beneficiaries of foreign trusts and who invest in Mexico through these trusts.

Under these new rules, two separate taxpayers are effectively receiving the same item of income simultaneously, leading to a puzzling question: who is liable to pay the tax?

Fiduciaries and Beneficiaries

Under Mexican law, only financial institutions may be fiduciaries for fideicomisos, thus there are no rules in Mexican law for individuals acting as fiduciaries of trusts, either in Mexico or abroad.

If a Mexican resident acts as a fiduciary of a foreign trust, the consequences would have to be determined considering the rights and obligations assumed under the agreement through which that person became a fiduciary.

If a resident in Mexico acts both as a fiduciary and a beneficiary, under current rules in Mexico, that person would be subject to IT for all income attributable as beneficiary and, depending on the actual agreement or deed, additional consequences may come from his/her acting as fiduciary.

Control over Non-Mexican Investment Structures

Under a tax reform that came into force in 2020 the notion of “control” was fundamentally changed.

Up to that moment, if a non-Mexican investment structure was organised in such a way that the Mexican beneficiary of the structure did not have the authority to determine the moment at which earnings or profits generated in the structure would be distributed, a lack of control exception was applicable and the structure was respected (and not disregarded); in these cases, the Mexican beneficiary would only be obligated to report and recognise taxable income when a distribution occurred.

Under the new rules, it is almost impossible to claim a lack of control exception; under the new rules, the concept of control is mixed and replaced with the content of a rule to determine ultimate beneficiary owners.

Therefore, any person deemed the ultimate beneficial owner of a structure will become obligated to report the structure and assume the income generated therein and will not be able to claim a lack of control exception even if the trust is 100% discretional.

In Mexico, there are not any particular structures that are specifically endorsed as the optimal method for asset protection planning.

Fideicomisos are the most popular by far as a tool for asset protection planning, estate planning and general matters concerning successions for assets located within Mexico.

Regarding assets located in other jurisdictions, trusts are undoubtedly the preferred method of protection used by Mexican investors.

In Mexico, the most common way to pass wealth and control from generation to generation is through wills.  This practice is reflective of a cultural norm where the older generation typically retains control until the last possible moment.

In recent years this has started to change, and parents are passing assets to their children allowing at least a partial transfer of control of the family wealth.

One popular way to do it is through usufruct arrangements, where title to the asset is transferred to the children, but the right to use and benefit from the asset remains with the parent(s). This arrangement, although widely used in connection with shares, presents concerning features since: (i) it is not a regulated agreement, thus the effects are limited to what is actually contained in the agreement or deed through which it is created, and (ii) the IT Law in Mexico attributes dividend income to the owner of the share (the title holder) and not to the owner of the usufruct (who receives the dividends), generating controversies with tax authorities (no clear precedents from Mexican courts exist in this matter).

There are other more innovative techniques developed in recent years since the threat of a tax on inheritances seems imminent. 

Mexican law allows for fair market values to be adjusted by reflecting different conditions such as lack of marketability or control due to a partial transfer of an interest in an entity.

It must be noted that, for tax purposes, a valuation shall be performed by any of the following persons:

  • the National Institute for the Management and Appraisal of National Goods (a governmental agency);
  • credit institutions (ie, banks);
  • public brokers (corredores públicos) duly registered before the Ministry of Economy; and
  • companies specialised in the purchase and sale of merchandise or public auctions.

Wealth disputes are usually unpleasant affairs, in which the only ones who really benefit are the lawyers; the same applies in Mexico.

Over the years, wealth disputes have taken the form of civil, and even criminal, litigation between siblings; alternative ways of dispute resolution are recognised by law and their use is notably increasing. 

A mediation institute was recently established by recognised lawyers. The aim of the institute is to provide a valid alternative for dispute resolution, and so far the results are encouraging.

In wealth disputes, sometimes damages are inflicted on one of the parties; the aggrieved party needs to file a formal civil lawsuit to try and recover these damages.

Under Mexican civil law, damages must be demonstrated in order for a judge to impose an indemnification, which in some cases is hard to prove; punitive damages are only a recent occurrence, and most judges will dismiss such claims.

Under Mexican law, only corporate fiduciaries can exist.

Mexican law expressly establishes that fiduciaries must be authorised institutions, thus there is no possibility for an individual to act as such.

Fiduciaries are subject by law to a large number of obligations and controls.

In Mexico, fiduciaries are rarely held liable for the occurrences within the trust or the losses incurred. This is mostly due to the fact that under current law and practice, fiduciaries act only under specific instructions of the technical committee of the trust.

Technical committees are formed by persons not related to the fiduciary, who are named by the settlor and act independently from the fiduciary.

As long as the fiduciary acts within the scope of the instructions legally given, there will be no liability deriving from the execution of those instructions, except if the fiduciary knowingly acts against the best interest of the assets and generates losses for which it may be held liable.

There have been a couple of public cases in courts in which a fiduciary has been found liable for losses suffered by a beneficiary even when acting under strict instructions of a technical committee; these cases are still pending in higher courts and there is not a clear precedent on the matter yet.

Depending on the purpose of a fideicomiso, regulations may exist to limit exposure encouraging fiduciaries to invest prudently.

In any event, the final decisions are always in the hand of technical committees, acting independently from the fiduciary and thus limiting its liability.

Fiduciaries, however, are responsible for acting always within legal parameters, as good patres familias and not against the purpose of the fideicomiso.

Fiduciaries invest in the way technical committees instruct them to do so, and will have no say in it, unless the instruction is deemed illegal or contrary to the purpose of the trust.

Residency

You can enter the country as a tourist and stay for a certain period of time, and are allowed to buy or rent a house without a problem.

If you want to establish permanent residency in the country, you have to be authorised to do so, demonstrating a valid reason to stay in the country and a lawful means of subsistence.

Once authorised, you will initially be given the status of an immigrant for one year. After renewing this status for five years, you become a permanent resident and are treated, for almost all legal purposes, as a national.

Citizenship

There are essentially three ways to become a Mexican citizen:

  • By birth: if you are born to one or two Mexican parents, or if you are born in Mexico.
  • By marriage: if you are a foreign national who marries a Mexican citizen, you can apply for Mexican citizenship.
  • By naturalisation: first, you become a lawful resident, then apply for citizenship.

The procedures to obtain citizenship can be complex and may not always be efficient. It is important to approach this process with patience and a good understanding of the required steps. 

If a non-citizen wants to become a Mexican national in an expeditious manner, the only way is to marry a Mexican national and apply for citizenship. In this case, it is essentially automatic.

In Mexico there are no special planning mechanisms for minors or adults with disabilities; regular structures are used and the way to cope with the issue is through proper drafting and structuring of the matter.

Guardians and tutors may be appointed or named through a will or in an inter-vivos act; it only requires the act to be executed and formalised before a notary public.

If the person needing a guardian or tutor is not a minor and has no one in charge of him or her, then a procedure shall be followed before a judge, who will appoint the guardian.

In Mexico, other than private sector efforts through not-for-profit entities, there is no work being done to help families prepare financially for longer lives.

From a legal perspective, children born out of wedlock and posthumously conceived children are not treated any differently from other children as long as they are recognised by one or both parents.

Adopted children only establish a family link with the person adopting them; if a couple wants to adopt they may both do so as long as they are married or in a formal non-traditional marriage relationship (concubinato).

There are no rules concerning surrogate children; the practice is to adopt the children after they are born. It is common for Mexican wealthy couples struggling to conceive to enter into surrogate mother arrangements in the United States.

Mexico recognises same-sex marriages.

That being said, not all the states expressly provide for same-sex marriage, but if validly executed in one State it will be recognised nationwide.

Unfortunately, charitable giving is not encouraged in Mexico. Organised civil society entities are traditionally viewed as a political risk and potential enemies of the government.

Having a Catholic majority, Mexico has a long-standing tradition of charity through the church and some Catholic organisations.

Authorised Charities

Philanthropic activities may be carried out through authorised charities. These charities (donatarias autorizadas) are not subject to IT on their income, and donations made to these charities can be deducted from income tax by the donor (the deduction is limited to up to 7% of the taxable income of an individual or the taxable profit of a legal entity).

Charities are strictly regulated, subject to a large number of formal obligations, considered a money laundering risk and heavily audited.

If a charity fails, for example, to limit its administrative expenses to 5% or less of its income, the penalty is to lose its authorisation to accept deductible donations, and taxes will be imposed on its income.

Authorised charities are usually formed in one of two ways:

  • as non-commercial interest entities (asociaciones civiles); or
  • as foundations (instituciones de beneficiencia) regulated under State laws for public charities.

The regulation of both for tax purposes is essentially the same; in the case of foundations, there are additional obligations to comply with vis-à-vis the state agencies.

ZG Manuel Tron Consultores SC

Moliere 311 piso 2
Polanco
CP 11,550
Mexico City
Mexico

+5255 6830 4509

+5255 6830 4510

manuel@metron.mx www.metron.mx
Author Business Card

Trends and Developments


Authors



Galicia Abogados, S.C. (Galicia) is a leading law firm in the Mexican and Latin American legal markets. Galicia has more than 29 years of experience. The firm is renowned for its specialist knowledge in the areas of finance, energy and infrastructure, private equity, regulated industries, real estate and hospitality, and life sciences. Galicia is the only leading Mexican firm able to provide clients with a unique service offer that includes strong transactional and regulatory expertise coupled with strategic capabilities in litigation and ESG. Sustainability is at the top of the firm’s agenda when it comes to advising clients. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Pro Bono Work are part of Galicia’s core values. The firm’s DEI-driven culture has positioned +38% of women in leading positions (partner, counsel, executive and management) over the last five years. The firm is ranked as a leading firm in Mexico by Chambers and Partners and awarded Mexico Law Firm of the Year in 2013, 2015 and 2019, Latin America Law Firm of the Year in 2017, a Client Service Award in 2021 and 2022, and Latin America Outstanding Contribution: Diversity and Inclusion Firm of the Year in 2022.

Reevaluating International Wealth Management Structures: A Tax Perspective on Strategies by Mexican Taxpayers

This article focuses on examining the reasons why it is necessary to review and reevaluate, from a legal and tax perspective, the international estate planning structures established by Mexican taxpayers involving foreign companies or vehicles (eg LLCs, trusts, partnerships, investment funds) through which assets or investments are held.

Due to the current rules on foreign companies and vehicles, many of the aforementioned structures have proven inefficient in several key areas, such as confidentiality and tax efficiency. As these structures are not adapted to current circumstances, they may potentially lead to unfavourable tax outcomes.

It should be noted that most of these structures would generally have been created prior to 2020, since under the previous provisions it was possible to maintain assets and investments abroad without having to declare them in Mexico as long as it could be established that the taxpayer did not have control over the corresponding structure. After 2020, this situation changed.

This article will first examine the rules that may have tax effects on the estate planning structures, the legislative background, and finally the impact of these rules on the international estate planning structures of Mexican taxpayers.

Provisions to be Considered and Their Legislative Background

Preliminary Note

The terms “foreign companies”, “foreign entities”, “foreign vehicles” or “foreign figures”, “fiscal transparency” and “Mexican tax resident” or “Mexican taxpayer” should be understood as follows:

Foreign companies or entities refer to companies and other entities which, according to the corporate laws of their incorporation, have their own legal personality, different from that of their partners. For example, an LLC or a corporation has its own legal personality. “Companies” or "entities" will be used interchangeably to denote such foreign entities throughout this article.

Foreign vehicles refer to all those legal instruments or agreements entered into under foreign laws that lack legal personality. The Mexican income tax law specifically includes within this definition trusts, partnerships and investment funds. “Vehicles” or “instruments” will be used interchangeably to denote such instruments or agreements throughout this article.

Fiscal Transparency refers to a foreign corporation or vehicle that is not a tax resident for income tax purposes in the country or jurisdiction where it is incorporated or where it has its place of effective management or the main seat of its administration and its income is attributed or flows through to its members, partners, shareholders or beneficiaries.

Tax Resident in Mexico or Mexican Taxpayer: an individual or legal entity that under Mexican law qualifies as a resident for tax purposes and is subject to income tax in Mexico on all its income regardless of the source of wealth from which it derives (worldwide income principle).

Description of the provisions impacting international estate planning structures

The provisions that are the subject of this article are described below in a simplified manner. For a better understanding, these rules will be divided into 3 blocks:

Rules applicable to foreign companies or vehicles receiving payments from Mexico

  • If a foreign entity qualifies as fiscally transparent under foreign law and receives a payment from Mexico: in Mexico such entity is subject to Mexican income tax (IT) for the payment received as if it were a legal entity (ie, in this case, the fiscal transparency granted under foreign law is not recognised).
  • If a foreign vehicle, either transparent or not under foreign law, receives a payment from Mexico: in Mexico, that vehicle is subject to Mexican income tax on the payment received, as if it were a legal entity (regardless of whether that vehicle is treated as fiscally transparent under foreign law);

Mexican taxpayers that have an interest in foreign entities or vehicles

  • In relation to Mexican residents that participate in foreign entities that qualify as fiscally transparent under foreign law, the Mexican resident shall pay IT in Mexico on income obtained through these entities even if such income is not distributed or delivered to him/her (therefore, Mexican law does, in this case, recognise transparency granted abroad);
  • In relation to Mexican residents that participate in foreign vehicles, the Mexican resident shall pay IT in Mexico on the income obtained through these vehicles even when such income is not distributed or delivered (ie, the internal rule grants transparency regardless of the tax treatment of the foreign vehicle);
  • In relation to Mexican residents that participate in foreign entities not fiscally transparent, controlled by the Mexican resident and subject to Preferential Tax Regimes (or , using its Spanish acronym), this income shall be accrued by the Mexican taxpayer from the moment it is generated by the entity even if it is not distributed (anti-deferral rule). For the purposes herein, this rule will be referred to as the Mexican Controlled Foreign Company Rule or CFC rules.

Compliance obligations (information return and mandatory disclosure rule)

  • The Mexican law contains a rule requiring Mexican taxpayers to file an information return each year with respect to the following:
    1. income obtained subject to CFC rules;
    2. income of any kind coming from territories included in the “black list”; and
    3. taxpayers that carry out operations through foreign transparent entities and foreign legal vehicles.
  • Mandatory disclosure rule: tax advisors or, as the case may be, taxpayers, must disclose to the Mexican tax authorities information regarding “reportable schemes”, including any scheme that generates or may result in, directly or indirectly, the obtaining of a tax benefit in Mexico and has the characteristic of avoiding the application of the rules applicable to Mexican taxpayers participating in transparent entities or vehicles and the rules applicable to controlled foreign companies subject to .

Legislative background and reference to BEPS

The introduction of the rules mentioned in the previous section into the Mexican tax legislation is closely linked to the recommendations issued by the Organization for the Economic Development (“OECD”) through the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) actions.

BEPS refers to tax planning strategies that exploit gaps in tax rules to shift profits to low-tax locations or erode tax bases. While some schemes are illegal, many are not. The BEPS package includes 15 Actions aimed at addressing tax avoidance. Some notable actions are:

  • Action 2 focuses on developing treaty provisions and domestic rules to counter hybrid instruments and entities used for aggressive tax planning and double non-taxation.
  • Action 3 suggests attributing certain income categories of foreign companies to shareholders to prevent income shifting through offshore structures. Controlled foreign company (CFC) rules are designed to prevent taxpayers from shifting income into foreign companies they control, which can lead to profit shifting and long-term tax deferral.
  • Action 12 provides recommendations for the design of disclosure rules, requiring taxpayers and advisors to disclose aggressive tax planning arrangements. The aim is to strike a balance between obtaining early information on such schemes and avoiding excessive compliance burdens on taxpayers.

These actions are part of international efforts to combat BEPS and equip governments with tools to tackle tax avoidance effectively.

In light of the above, the Mexican legislature “localised” certain rules suggested in the BEPS actions and incorporated them into the domestic legislation, resulting, among other things, in the rules summarised in the previous sections. The Mexican legislature justified this approach as follows. With regard to the rules for payments from Mexico to foreign tax transparent entities and foreign instruments, where they are taxed as legal entities, the primary motivations for this treatment are simplification and better control for the tax administration. By analysing the tax situation of the entity or legal entity instead of each individual member, partner, shareholder, or beneficiary, the process is streamlined.

Additionally, this approach aligns with Mexico’s international policy on double taxation treaties, which generally does not recognise fiscal transparency unless explicitly stated.

Overall, these justifications support the approach of treating foreign tax transparent entities and foreign instruments as taxable entities, simplifying analysis, enhancing control, and maintaining consistency with Mexico’s international tax practices.

The proposed changes regarding income obtained by Mexican residents through transparent foreign entities, foreign instruments, and CFC rules aim to establish a clear distinction between these scenarios.

From a tax policy standpoint, income generated through foreign instruments or entities considered fiscally transparent should be accrued in Mexico, aligning with foreign legislation that attributes such income to a resident.

Income from foreign entities subject to CFC rules follows an early accrual mechanism to prevent profit transfer abroad.

Legal instruments treated as non-transparent taxpayers abroad should be transparently under Mexican law to prevent tax planning that defers Mexican tax by avoiding dividend or profit distribution.

The proposed amendments to the CFC rules serve two purposes. Firstly, they aim to address the recommendations of the Final Report of Action 3 of the BEPS Project, thereby strengthening the application of this Chapter. Secondly, the amendments seek to clarify certain provisions that have caused implementation issues.

The proposed changes, based on the BEPS Project recommendations, aim to determine when a taxpayer has control over a foreign entity. This will help combat tax planning strategies that aim to circumvent this control requirement.

Finally, regarding the disclosure of reportable schemes, based on BEPS Action 12, the Federal Executive proposed the implementation of a regime for the disclosure of reportable schemes in Mexico, with the purpose of obtaining information regarding issues that the tax authorities have identified as areas of risk during the exercise of their functions.

From the remarks provided by the executive, it can be inferred that by integrating rules inspired by the BEPS actions recommended by the OECD into Mexican tax legislation, Mexico is seeking to prevent tax avoidance resulting from profit shifting and deferment of tax payment in Mexico, ensure accurate income attribution, and retain information from these structures.

Therefore, it is important to know the rules and understand how they influence estate planning structures. This topic will be further analysed in the subsequent section.

Interaction of Rules with Estate Planning Structures

The following cases will help illustrate the impact of current rules on estate planning structures.

Mexican taxpayers with control over foreign corporations

If a Mexican taxpayer is a partner, shareholder, member or beneficiary of a foreign corporation over which it has control (for example, an LLC), one of the desirable legal consequences of the structure is that the income produced through such corporation is taxed in Mexico until it is effectively distributed to the Mexican resident (generally through a dividend distribution) to avoid phantom income taxation.

This applies both to structures held directly by Mexican individuals and indirectly through Mexican corporations.

This is logical since the aforementioned foreign companies are “legal entities” with a separate legal personality from their founders and, in terms of liability, they are subject to their own rights and obligations.

In accordance with the aforesaid rules in force in Mexico with respect to foreign entities, in a case such as the above, it would be advisable for the Mexican taxpayer to reevaluate the structure as follows.

First, it must be determined whether or not the foreign entity is fiscally transparent under the laws of its place of incorporation or country where the effective seat of management is located (a situation that must be confirmed by foreign advisors). This leads to two potential scenarios: (i) it is transparent or (ii) it is not transparent.

If the entity is fiscally transparent under the rules of its place of incorporation or place of effective management, the applicable rule is the one that recognises, for Mexican tax purposes, the fiscal transparency of the entity and obliges the Mexican taxpayer to pay IT in Mexico on the income obtained through these entities even when such income is not distributed or delivered to the Mexican taxpayer.

The Mexican taxpayer must recognise income on an actual basis regardless of whether it has effective control over the foreign transparent or not. Control is only relevant for assessing the participation of the Mexican taxpayer in the entity.

In this case, the Mexican taxpayer will also have to file an annual information return with the Mexican tax authorities for the “operations” carried out through such company, even when the foreign company has not generated income.

If the entity is not fiscally transparent in its place of incorporation or place of effective management, the analysis is more complex, since it is necessary to determine whether the Mexican CFC rules are applicable or not:

  • It is necessary to determine if the income of the foreign company is derived from business activities or if, on the contrary, it maintains mostly passive investment (a broad concept that includes all income from interest, dividends, royalties capital gains derived from sales of shares, securities or intangibles, rents, etc). Entities obtaining income from “active” business activities are not subject to CFC rules.
  • If the entity both carries out business activities and obtains passive income, if the passive income exceeds 20% of the total income of the entity, the entity will be considered subject to the CFC rules if the income is subject to REFIPRES and the entity is controlled by the Mexican taxpayer.
  • Assuming the entity obtains passive income, it is necessary to know at what rate the foreign entity’s income is taxed. If the income obtained by the foreign company is not taxed in the country where it was incorporated or is taxed at a rate lower than 75% of the IT that would be payable in Mexico, the CFC rules apply. In this sense, it can be understood that if the structure is owned by an individual resident in Mexico, the tax rate paid abroad must be at least 26.25%; if it is lower, the entity falls under the CFC rules. If the entity is owned by a legal entity, the minimum rate must be 22.5%.
  • It must be analysed whether the Mexican resident taxpayer exercises “effective control” over the entity. This is a complex concept that encompasses a broad range of factors, but generally includes any structure over which there is majority (more than 50%) ownership of voting rights, shares, or assets. It also includes cases in which the person holds the power of decision, veto, or management. If control is not exercised, the company will not be subject to CFC rules.

If, on the basis of the analysis above, it is concluded that the entity is controlled, pays less than 75% of the IT that would be payable in Mexico, and generates mainly passive income, the taxpayer in Mexico must pay IT in Mexico on the income generated by the foreign company, even if it is not distributed, and must also file an informative tax return for such income.

On the other hand, if the company falls under any of the exceptions, for example, the taxpayer does not have control, is taxed at the permitted levels (more than 75% of Mexican tax that would be payable) or if it carries out business activities (with passive income not exceeding 20%), the company may remain outside the scope of the CFC rules. As a result, this would be practically the only case where a Mexican taxpayer would be allowed to defer payment of IT in Mexico until the moment when such company distributes profits to the Mexican taxpayer.

Mexican taxpayers participating in foreign vehicles

To provide a clearer understanding of the analysis necessary in this scenario, let us consider an example where a Mexican taxpayer has an interest in a foreign trust or partnership. The assessment would proceed as follows.

First, it is necessary to determine whether or not the trust or partnership holds a legal personality separate from its members under the laws of the country of incorporation or effective management.

This allows us to establish if it operates as an entity or legal instrument. If identified as an entity, its fiscal transparency will need to be evaluated based on the analysis explained in the preceding section.

Thus, assuming that in this case it is a legal instrument – ie, it does not have legal personality, the rule that grants transparency to such entity is applicable, therefore the Mexican taxpayer must pay taxes in Mexico on the income obtained through such entity.

The determination of whether the vehicle is fiscally transparent or not will only be relevant for purposes of determining the rules under which the taxable income is calculated.

If it is fiscally transparent, it will be in accordance with the rules applicable to the Mexican taxpayer; if it is not fiscally transparent, it will be in accordance with the taxable income of such figure, calculated in terms of the general regime for legal entities resident in Mexico.

Mexican taxpayer maintaining investments or assets in Mexico through foreign companies or vehicles

On the other hand, if, in the preceding sections (Mexican taxpayer with participation in a foreign instrument or in a tax transparent entity), the assets or investments held by the foreign entity/vehicle were located in Mexico and therefore the foreign corporation or vehicle receives payments from Mexico, this income may be exposed to double taxation in Mexico.

For example, if such vehicle receives rental income from immovable property the rental income will be subject to a withholding tax (usually 25%), but as this income is being received by a foreign vehicle the Mexican taxpayer has to pay income tax in Mexico in respect of such rental income in the year in which it is generated by the vehicle. As such, the Mexican taxpayer would include such income as accruable in its tax return and additionally pay 25% withholding tax on it.

As a remedy or relief from this double taxation, Mexican rules provide for full crediting of withholding tax paid in Mexico; however, these rules could lead to double taxation problems if the tax authorities eventually reject the crediting.

Final Considerations and Conclusions

Readers should keep in mind that the analysis and reassessment of international wealth management structures escalate in complexity when the structure involves more than one entity or vehicle, or even a combination of transparency and non-transparency. Given the impossibility of exploring all scenarios, this article does not analyse these more complex cases.

Prior to the 2020 Mexican Reform, the concept of “control” for foreign entities or vehicles was different, and there was no explicit rule for transparent foreign entities and legal instruments. As a result, many international estate planning structures used by Mexican taxpayers included delegating decisions or the administration of the foreign company or vehicle to a third party (such as a manager, technical supervisor, another vehicle or intermediary entity, bank, trustee, etc) to evade the application of “control”.

However, under the current rules, many of these structures no longer qualify for the control exception. In some cases, control is not even a relevant criterion for determining the tax treatment, especially for transparent entities and legal instruments. Consequently, the tax must be paid in Mexico, and reporting obligations may even apply, so it is necessary to review the situation of each structure.

Any arrangement implemented to allow the Mexican taxpayer to invoke the “control” exception could trigger the rule concerning reportable schemes. This would oblige the Mexican taxpayer’s tax advisor, or if applicable, the taxpayer themselves, to disclose the entire structure to the Mexican Tax Administration Service (Servicio de Administración Tributaria). Non-compliance with this requirement can lead to severe penalties.

It should be remembered that any adjustments to the structure of estate planning must be accompanied by a comprehensive analysis. This analysis should not only cover tax implications but must also analyse corporate and inheritance aspects, both of which form key components of these structures.

Galicia Abogados, S.C.

Torre Del Bosque
Blvd Manuel Avila Camacho 24
7th Floor
Col Lomas de Chapultepec
Mexico City
Mexico 11000

+52 55554 09200

Ana.lopez@galicia.com.mx www.galicia.com.mx
Author Business Card

Law and Practice

Author



ZG MANUEL TRON CONSULTORES SC is a small and highly specialised law firm, dealing with tax and estate matters from our single office in Mexico City. We offer sophisticated tax advice on domestic and international matters, for both individuals and corporations. On international dealings we have ample experience in inbound and outbound ventures, and our client base includes Mexican and foreign investors. We also advise and represent taxpayers before federal tax authorities in Mexico, including representation in negotiation for private ruling letters, tax controversy, audits, and mediation procedures. In partnership with other specialised firms, we are also involved in providing both advice and representation to taxpayers on criminal tax matters and general tax litigation as well. We have ample experience concerning advice and structuring on domestic and international estate and succession planning for Mexican resident individuals and their families, and for financial, insurance and trust institutions.

Trends and Developments

Authors



Galicia Abogados, S.C. (Galicia) is a leading law firm in the Mexican and Latin American legal markets. Galicia has more than 29 years of experience. The firm is renowned for its specialist knowledge in the areas of finance, energy and infrastructure, private equity, regulated industries, real estate and hospitality, and life sciences. Galicia is the only leading Mexican firm able to provide clients with a unique service offer that includes strong transactional and regulatory expertise coupled with strategic capabilities in litigation and ESG. Sustainability is at the top of the firm’s agenda when it comes to advising clients. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Pro Bono Work are part of Galicia’s core values. The firm’s DEI-driven culture has positioned +38% of women in leading positions (partner, counsel, executive and management) over the last five years. The firm is ranked as a leading firm in Mexico by Chambers and Partners and awarded Mexico Law Firm of the Year in 2013, 2015 and 2019, Latin America Law Firm of the Year in 2017, a Client Service Award in 2021 and 2022, and Latin America Outstanding Contribution: Diversity and Inclusion Firm of the Year in 2022.

Compare law and practice by selecting locations and topic(s)

{{searchBoxHeader}}

Select Topic(s)

loading ...
{{topic.title}}

Please select at least one chapter and one topic to use the compare functionality.