Mexico: Proposed tax reform to transfer pricing provisions for fiscal year 2022

In brief

The Economic Package for fiscal year 2022, submitted to the Mexican Congress on 8 September, contains a Draft Decree by means of which various tax provisions are amended, added and repealed ("Proposed Tax Reform"), including various modifications in transfer pricing matters. This tax alert describes the most relevant proposed amendments regarding transfer pricing compliance, highlighting their practical implications for taxpayers.


In depth

  • Maquiladora companies. One of the most relevant aspects of the Proposed Tax Reform is that it eliminates the option that maquiladora companies currently have to obtain an Advance Transfer Pricing Agreement (APA) in order to comply with their transfer pricing obligations and maintain the tax benefits of the maquiladora regime. Therefore, maquiladoras will only be able to comply with their transfer pricing obligations through Safe Harbor rules established in Article 182 of the Mexican Income Tax Law (MITL).

    The Proposed Tax Reform also eliminates the written notice that the maquiladora companies that apply the Safe Harbor rules currently have to file, no later than the month of March, as stated in article 182 of the MITL. With the proposed reform, the maquiladora companies must report their compliance through the informative return for manufacturing, maquiladora and export services companies (DIEMSE for its acronym in Spanish), where they will reflect that the tax profit represented at least the highest amount of applying the provisions of sections I and II of the aforementioned article.

    Consistent with the foregoing, the proposed reform to article 183-bis of the MITL (maquiladora companies under the shelter modality) eliminates the APA option to determine the tax profit of each of its clients residing abroad. Although the repeal of the APA alternative as of fiscal year 2022 constitutes a simplification measure for transfer pricing compliance, in case of approval, it would be reasonable to expect an increase to the taxable income of those capital-intensive taxpayers.
  • Transfer pricing study. The proposed reform contains a series of modifications to section IX, article 76 of the MITL in order to treat domestic intercompany transactions the same way as foreign intercompany transactions in the transfer pricing study. Additionally, the requirement to include a functions, assets and risks analysis is extended, not only to the taxpayer as currently regulated in the MITL, but also to the related parties involved in the transaction. Likewise, it includes the obligation to document the comparability elements and the application of the adjustments made in terms of article 179 of the MITL.

    If Congress approves these modifications taxpayers in Mexico should consider changes in the scope and content of their transfer pricing documentation, in order to guarantee compliance with the new provisions.
  • Informative return of transactions carried out with related parties (Annex 9 of the DIM). Consistent with the foregoing, the Draft Decree proposes the modification of section X of article 76 of the MITL, so that taxpayers include in Annex 9 of the Multiple Informative Tax Return (DIM for its acronym in Spanish) information of all transactions carried out with related parties regardless of their tax residency, this is, also including those carried out with residents in Mexico. Additionally, it proposes to modify the filing date of this informative return, which should be no later than 15 May of the immediately subsequent year of the fiscal year in question.
  • Annual informative returns of related parties (BEPS Returns). Amendments to article 76-A of the MILT are proposed, in order to expand the universe of taxpayers required to file BEPS Returns. In particular, derived from the proposed changes to articles 32-A (a new second paragraph) and 32-H (new section VI) of the Federal Tax Code (CFF, for its acronym in Spanish), companies required to prepare a Statutory Tax Report (Dictamen Fiscal), and their related parties performing intercompany transactions, will be required to file BEPS returns. In addition, similar to Annex 9 of the DIM, taxpayers must submit the local file return by 15 May of the immediately subsequent year of the fiscal year in question; maintaining the obligation to file the master file and country-by-country report by 31 December of the immediately subsequent year of the fiscal year in question.

    If approved, these changes represent a step closer to the homologation between the transfer pricing study and the local file, reducing compliance costs incurred by taxpayers.
  • Analyzed period (Year vs year). This proposed amendment to article 179 of the MITL, would obligate taxpayers to use by default information of comparable transactions corresponding only to the fiscal year under analysis and, exceptionally, the use of two or more fiscal years when the business cycle or commercial acceptance of the taxpayer's product covers more than one fiscal year.

    Through this modification, the reform seeks to incorporate into the body of the law the technical criteria that the SAT has broadly adopted in transfer pricing audits. In this way, taxpayers who routinely apply the relevant methods in their transfer pricing studies using financial information from two or more years of comparable companies, will have to evaluate the need to change the multi-year focus of their analysis to just one year, or else to robustly document the economic reasons for choosing a period longer than one year.
  • Interquartile range. The proposed reform to article 180 of the MITL incorporates into the text of the law the obligation to use the interquartile range, which is currently contained in article 302 of the Regulations of the MITL, when applying transfer pricing methods when two or more comparable transactions are available,. In this regard, the proposed reform only considers two exceptions to the application of the interquartile range: (i) when the application of the method is agreed within the framework of a mutual agreement procedure indicated in the treaties to avoid double taxation; or (ii) when it derives from the application of the authorized method in accordance with the general rules issued by the Tax Administration Service (SAT).

    Although the application of the interquartile range is a generalized practice by taxpayers in Mexico, the eventual entry into force of this modification could imply the reevaluation of some transfer pricing policies based on broader statistical ranges (for example, the interdecile range ) that have been established on the high degree of comparability of comparable companies or transactions.

Although the Proposed Reform has yet to be analyzed and approved by the Mexican Congress and is subject to possible modifications, it is advisable to analyze the proposed changes, and evaluate their impact on  intercompany transactions and transfer pricing supporting documentation. At Baker McKenzie we have a multidisciplinary team of lawyers, economists, financial specialists and accountants, experts in transfer pricing, who can support your company in all related matters.

Copyright © 2022 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.