{"id":6362,"date":"2025-11-29T17:15:00","date_gmt":"2025-11-29T23:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/qcgtransferpricing.com\/en\/?p=6362"},"modified":"2026-04-14T12:05:44","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T18:05:44","slug":"key-developments-in-transfer-pricing-in-mexico","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/qcgtransferpricing.com\/en\/blog\/key-developments-in-transfer-pricing-in-mexico\/","title":{"rendered":"Key Developments in Transfer Pricing in Mexico"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

October\u2013November 2025<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the last quarter, Mexico saw significant developments that redraw the enforcement landscape for multinational groups. The SAT published new risk criteria for 2026 audits, the Supreme Court resolved an emblematic case with direct implications for transfer pricing, and the OECD recognized the country\u2019s capacity in APAs and MAPs. The message is clear: Mexico\u2019s technical sophistication and audit capacity continue to advance rapidly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. SAT\u2019s New Risk Criteria for 2026 Audits<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SAT announced the parameters it will use to select audits of Large Taxpayers starting in 2026. While these are not specific transfer\u2011pricing regulations, several of the criteria are directly linked to compliance under this regime \u2014 such as economic substance, evidence of operations, and results from intercompany transactions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Top Transfer\u2011Pricing Risks under the New Criteria<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recurring Tax Losses<\/strong>
Mexican subsidiaries with limited\u2011risk profiles that report sustained losses will be under immediate scrutiny. Corporate restructurings that have resulted in limited\u2011risk distribution models or contract manufacturing have long been considered high\u2011risk by the tax authority. If such entities continue to report losses, the SAT may question why they were not shielded from financial effects of risks \u2014 calling into question the legitimacy of those losses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What to do:<\/em> Review the consistency of your group\u2019s transfer pricing policies in accordance with the BEPS framework and the Mexican regulatory context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Intercompany Payments Without Substance (services, royalties, technical assistance, financing)<\/strong>
The SAT will increase scrutiny over the materiality of intercompany payments. For services, it will verify the capacity to provide and receive the service, the economic logic, and evidence of benefit. For intangibles, it will evaluate the existence of the asset, who performs the value\u2011generating activities, and what independent third parties would pay. For financing operations, it will assess whether the structure makes economic sense compared to market alternatives. Even with formal documentation, any operation may be recharacterized as simulated if its substance is not demonstrable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What to do:<\/em> Strengthen operational evidence and functional analysis; document benefits and economic rationale for every payment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inconsistencies Between Tax Value and Customs Value<\/strong>
The authority will push reviews when imported goods are declared at below\u2011market values or fail to meet regulatory or non\u2011tariff compliance. This can lead to simultaneous fiscal and customs adjustments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What to do:<\/em> Ensure total consistency between the transfer pricing study, customs declarations and applicable regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Transactions With Entities in REFIPRE Jurisdictions<\/strong>
Any transaction with low\u2011tax or preferential\u2011tax jurisdictions will trigger automatic scrutiny. Payments to entities in preferential tax regimes are presumed not to have been negotiated at arm\u2019s length, unless proven otherwise. Therefore, the taxpayer must demonstrate business purpose, economic substance, and comparability to independent parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What to do:<\/em> Prepare comprehensive documentation of the beneficiary, cash flows, contracts and transfer\u2011pricing analysis to support arm\u2019s\u2011length conditions for operations involving tax\u2011haven jurisdictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Takeaway: <\/strong>The new SAT criteria are a clear preview of the types of adjustments that the authority will pursue in 2026. Defense can no longer be reactive: real economic alignment, impeccable documentation and continuous monitoring are required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Adverse Judicial Environment: The First Majestic Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Primero Empresa Minera (First Majestic) confirms a worrying trend: higher courts are showing increased deference to the SAT and a decreasing willingness to review the technical merits of transfer pricing disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case \u2014 involving a tax liability exceeding MXN\u202f2,868 million \u2014 was dismissed without examination of the factual substance, upholding the adjustment. The previously granted injunction was dissolved immediately. Notably, the controversy remains pending before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) under the World Bank framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications for Taxpayers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n