Thesis Interpretation: Presumption on Positive Balance Refund at SAT

Jurisprudence is interpreted by the Federal Judiciary Branch, resolving thesis contradiction regarding the use of Presumption by SAT (Mexican tax authority) to determine or require more information to authorize a Positive Balance Refund from a taxpayer.

SOURCE
Thesis Register: 2015101
Source: Federal Judicial Weekly
Authority: Circuit Plenary
Type of Thesis: Jurisprudence
Thesis: PC.XVI.A. J/19 A (10a.)
Subject: Administrative
Date of publication: 9/08/2017
Item: Positive Balance. When a request for repayment is made, the authority may use presumption to verify the transactions' effective execution from which it is derived and, if appropriate, to conclude that they did not happen.
Link to original source (only Spanish): http://bit.ly/2fo9zuz.

---

The Court named Circuit Plenary, authority to expose jurisprudences, determines the previous resolutions.

Solo Negocios provides the following explanation:

The authority, to determine the legality of a refund, may use Presumption to deduce the exposed fact by taxpayer (his reasoning for requesting the refund); this presumption must seek to deduce from the known and exposed fact by taxpayer, another presumption of ordinary consequence, based on a correct balance between said proven fact and that presumed with a rational deductive process and consistent with the above.

Therefore, if a request for refund from a positive balance is based on legal tax invoices is filed, the authority may use presumptions to verify the effective conduct in those transactions and, if necessary, require further information to achieve that rationalism and coherence, with respect to that such request for refund, comes from legal acts of taxpayer's business operations.

Given this, taxpayer must (at its own cost), formulate internal mechanisms to achieve this "rationalism and coherence", that is, a Quality Management System (QMS) or a processes and procedures system that keep record and trace of business acts and therefore their tax invoices, to avoid falling outside of such rationalism and coherence.

Obviously, the authority's position is more radical every day to monitor and it is validated by the Supreme Court; but, if possible: (a) we need to modify these laws, politically (a long-term issue), and/or (b) make relevant adjustments in the company (having an QMS), and above all, against the tax authority (tax litigation), having certainty on the definition of rationalism and coherence, we could contain their collecting expectations.

Any questions about this explanation, feel free to contact us.

Solo Negocios
Phone: +52 (656) 6119768
Email: correo@solonegocios.mx