PROBLEMS
The Supervisory Authority determined in charge of our client, hereinafter “taxpayer moral” a tax credit in the amount of $——- pesos as well as a distribution of profits for the revised fiscal year in the amount of
$—– pesos.
The foregoing, in view of the presumptive determination of taxes made by the supervisory authority (within the Home Visit Procedure in Foreign Trade Matters) in accordance with the provisions of numeral 59, sections I and II of the Tax Tax Code, in relation to the income recorded in the monthly trial balance corresponding to the foreign trade operations in which the taxpayer recorded the foreign trade operations. It should be noted that in such foreign trade operations, “the taxpayer morality” only intervened as a manager in the processing of the definitive import declarations of the goods that were acquired directly by its customers from suppliers abroad and that were therefore directly paid by the customers of the “taxpayer morality” to their suppliers.
Actions and strategies implemented by ST Stratego
A Nullity Trial was filed before the Federal Court of Fiscal and Administrative Justice and within the strategies followed in the Nullity Trial, the following were followed:
The update was demonstrated in the case of the exception contemplated by the aforementioned numeral 59 of the Federal Tax Code, verifying that the income indicated by the supervisory authority was NOT cumulative income, being that the only income that had that quality in the revised fiscal year for “taxpayer morals” were those obtained in his capacity as a manager or commission agent for the provision of his professional services, which he effectively integrated into his assets and for which he paid the Federal Treasury the corresponding taxes.
For the purposes of the foregoing, the merits of our arguments were demonstrated with support from the accounting expert evidence of the substantive statements (accounting and tax) that were asserted.
Likewise, it was demonstrated in that instance of challenge, that the Inspection Procedure (HOME VISIT) carried out by the supervisory authority did not comply with the requirements provided for in numerals 14 and 16 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States.
RESULT
Based on the merits of the arguments and strategies implemented for the resolution of this case, a final judgment was obtained in favor of the merits in which it was resolved to declare the NULLITY PLAIN AND SIMPLE of the challenged resolutions. (Said judgment was final through the Executory Appeal for Tax Review filed by the defendant authority in that Trial, which was declared unfounded).
Finally, it should be noted that as a result of the intervention of our team, in the present case it was possible to avoid through the corresponding legal means, a true legal contingency for our client, which evidently endangered his assets.
CASE STUDY SUPPORT
For more information or support of this success story as well as our services, we ask you to fill out the following form or contact 01 800 626 0155.
Legal Notice and Copyright
The content of this article is for informational and general information purposes only. It does not constitute a legal opinion, personalized advice, or specific tax advice. Consequently, ST STRATEGO assumes no liability arising from the interpretation or use of this document.
Reproduction of this publication in whole or in part, by any means or format, is strictly prohibited without prior, express, and written authorization from the author. Any unauthorized use will be punished in accordance with the Federal Copyright Law and other applicable provisions.
If you would like more information on the information presented here or to learn more about our legal, tax, and foreign trade solutions, please do not hesitate to contact us at info@stratego-st.com.