Deadline to defend against the presumption of non-existence of SAT operations

When the tax authority, due to the exercise of its powers of verification, becomes aware of facts that appear in files or documents provided by other authorities and that serve to motivate its resolutions, it must grant the taxpayer a period of 15 days to state what to your right suits. This is established in article 63 of the Fiscal Code of the Federation (CFF).

But according to an article published by prosecutionRegarding the procedure related to the presumption of non-existence of operations established in article 69-B of the CFF, when the taxpayer is made aware of facts that appear in files or documents provided by other authorities, the tax authority is not obliged to grant additionally, the period of 15 days established in article 63 of the CFF for him to express what is convenient for him.

The foregoing is due to the fact that the procedure established in article 69-B does not necessarily emanate from the exercise of the verification powers provided for in article 42 of the CFF, as expressly established in article 63, but rather it is a procedure autonomous.

Besides, prosecution He pointed out that article 69-B itself grants the taxpayer a period of 15 days, so that he manifests before the tax authority what is appropriate to his right and provide the documentation and information that you consider pertinent to refute the presumption of non-existence of certain operationsso the audience guarantee is not violated.

The foregoing was determined by the Second Section of the Superior Chamber of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TSJA), in a thesis published in February 2022.

Thesis: VIII-P-2aS-754
Page: 183
Epoch: Ninth Epoch
Source: RTFJA Ninth Period. Year I. No. 2. February 2022
Matter:
Room: Precedent of Second Section
Type: Isolated Thesis

PRESUMPTION OF NON-EXISTENCE OF OPERATIONS. THE TAX AUTHORITY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO GRANT THE TAXPAYER THE PERIOD ESTABLISHED IN ARTICLE 63, SECOND PARAGRAPH, OF THE FEDERATION TAX CODE, WHEN FACTS ARE DISCLOSED IN DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY OTHER AUTHORITIES.- Article 63 of the Code The Federal Prosecutor provides that when, due to the exercise of verification powers, the tax authority becomes aware of facts contained in files or documents provided by other authorities and that serve to motivate its resolutions, the taxpayer must be granted a period of fifteen days to express what is appropriate to his right. However, regarding the procedure related to the presumption of non-existence of operations established in article 69-B of the same Code, when the taxpayer is made aware of facts that appear in files or documents provided by other authorities, the tax authority is not obliged to additionally grant him the period of fifteen days established in article 63 of the Code in question so that he can express what is appropriate to his right, since the procedure established in article 69-B does not necessarily emanate from the exercise of the powers of verification provided for in article 42 of the Fiscal Code of the Federation, as expressly established in article 63 of merit, but rather it is an autonomous procedure. Especially since Article 69-B itself grants the taxpayer a period of fifteen days to state before the tax authority what is appropriate to his right and provide the documentation and information that he considers pertinent to disprove the presumption of non-existence of determined operations, therefore that the audience guarantee is not violated.

Contentious-Administrative Trial No. 19201/19-17-05-8/381/21-S2-08-04.- Resolved by the Second Section of the Superior Chamber of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice, in session on September 9, 2021 , unanimously with 4 votes in favor.- Magistrate Speaker: Víctor Martín Orduña Muñoz.- Secretary: Lic. Alin Paulina Gutiérrez Verdeja. (Thesis approved in session on September 9, 2021).

– With information from prosecution.








Subscribe to El Fiscoanalista (news and jurisprudence in tax and labor matters) and to our YouTube channel.

It may interest you




Deadline to defend against the presumption of non-existence of SAT operations






When is the annual presentation of digital platforms with “definitive payments”?






Taxpayer refund thefts add up to 2.3 million pesos: SAT






SAT goes for greater control of mining companies