“Recurso de Amparo” or Writs of Amparo filed against eContabilidad requirement in Mexico no longer a viable strategy to delay obligations

Brian Elswick
November 13, 2017

When the Miscellaneous Resolution for 2015 entered into force requiring the report of the Electronic Accounting (“eContabilidad” or eAccounting), a great number of taxpayers that considered that their constitutional rights were violated filed Amparos against this new mandate. The immediate result was that thousands of businesses received a suspension of the obligation of:

  1. Submitting or uploading their accounting information to the SAT servers
  2. Using the Tax Mailbox as a new electronic mean of communicating with the SAT
  3. Receiving electronic audits and Revisions from the SAT
  4. Being the object of seizures and other enforced collection processes electronically among others benefits.

In July 2016; however, the supreme court of Mexico decided that the requirement of uploading accounting records electronically and using the tax mailbox as the new tool of communication with the taxpayer was constitutionally mandated. Nevertheless, the supreme court also decided that Annex 24 of RMF2015 was unconstitutional, due to the fact that some of the content of Annex 24 was not written in Spanish and the technical specifications for creating these files were defined by “an international community” rather than the Mexican authority.

This particular decision was applicable only to specific taxpayers that had made petitions of Amparos to the court based on those arguments. Some other cases may have been treated differently if the arguments in which they based their request of Amparo was different.

Therefore, the solution to those cases has not been uniform. Nevertheless, those taxpayers that obtained a temporary Amparo or a temporary suspension of the obligation of submitting the electronic accounting are not required to comply with that mandate for that specific year.


Should businesses operating in Mexico rely on the Writs of Amparo to avoid eAccounting requirements?

Many tried this strategy in 2015 and 2016 and successfully delayed the implementation of eAccounting due to the aforementioned issues within Annex 24. However, in 2016, the SAT issued a modification to correct the two issues that was then solidified by the courts and that denied any further Amparos or suspensions of obligations of compliance with eAccounting.

Following the proceedings, some tried again to appeal the corrections but were denied – a decision that was, again, upheld but Mexican courts.

There are some taxpayers that have filed Amparos against the 2017 version of Annex 24 of the RMF, based on the fact that the causes that made the Annex 24 of the RMF2015 unconstitutional still exist in the version 2017, or addressing new causes like hacking threats to their information.

However, the latest court decisions related to cases where taxpayers have challenged the remittance of eAccounting have clearly stated that the mandates included in the new miscellaneous resolutions are completely legal and do not violate the Mexican Constitution. Since the supreme court has declared the mandate of eAccounting constitutional, non-compliance will be subject to the sanctions established by Mexican tax law.

Based on these new developments, it is common opinion that after the number of decisions taken by the supreme court of Mexico, the use of the Amparos is no longer effective against the electronic accounting mandate.

Take Action

To avoid hefty fines and penalties for noncompliance, you need to be prepared to comply with Mexico’s eAccounting requirements. Contact Us to learn how you can automate and make accurate your eAccounting processes in Mexico.

Sign up for Email Updates

Stay up to date with the latest tax and compliance updates that may impact your business.


Brian Elswick

Brian Elswick is the Marketing Programs Manager for Sales & Use Tax, Business-to-Government Reporting, and VAT.
Share This Post

Tax Information Reporting United States
July 11, 2019
Why the IRS Needs to Release Cryptocurrency Tax Guidance

Despite IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig’s promise of “within the next 30 days” more than 30 days ago to Congress regarding the release of forthcoming cryptocurrency tax guidance, we have not seen anything materialize.  As we mentioned previously, the ongoing confusion related to tax reporting obligations continues to plague payers such as crypto or digital currency […]

EMEA Tax Compliance
July 10, 2019
New Regulation Reinforces Free Flow of Data in the EU

When thinking about the aim of GDPR, one of the first things that comes to mind is the set of rules, obligations, and restrictions on the processing of personal data. When in fact, as the full title of GDPR – General Data Protection Regulation – and its recitals explain, the subject matter and purpose of […]

E-Invoicing Compliance EMEA
July 10, 2019
Greek E-Invoicing Reform: Potential Impact of Recent National Elections

On 7 July, Greece began voting to elect a new government.  The disposed governing left party has been dealt with a hefty blow having been in power since 2015.  It was hoped they would introduce less severe politics which many claim they have not only failed to do but, in fact, they actually introduced stricter […]

Tax Information Reporting United States
July 9, 2019
The IRS Is Allowing TIN Masking on Form W-2. Here’s Why It’s a Good Idea

At last, the IRS is allowing payers to truncate, or effectively mask, tax identification numbers (TINs) on Forms W-2 sent to payees. The decision comes after years of concern from companies and taxpayers about the risk of exposing TINs, or Social Security Numbers in the case of individual payees, in W-2 distributions.  The new policy […]

July 9, 2019
Interpreting Insurance Tax Legislation

Tax legislation is sometimes structured, or worded, ambiguously.  This leaves scope for a number of different interpretations for the treatment of tax on insurance policies, some leading to a lower tax liability than others. This can often be seen when different insurance premium tax (IPT) rates apply to specific sub-classes of the same business or […]