If your headcount cannot produce what you invoiced, substance fails
Presumption of non-existent transactions covered by tax invoices. Employment contracts and employee records must be denied evidentiary value to prove substance when the number of employees is not consistent with the volume of invoiced transactions.
Official heading (Spanish): PRESUNCIÓN DE INEXISTENCIA DE OPERACIONES AMPARADAS EN COMPROBANTES FISCALES. DEBE NEGARSE VALOR PROBATORIO A LOS CONTRATOS LABORALES Y A LAS CONSTANCIAS DE TRABAJADORES PARA ACREDITAR SU MATERIALIDAD, CUANDO NO EXISTA CONGRUENCIA ENTRE LA COMPARATIVA DEL NÚMERO DE EMPLEADOS Y EL VOLUMEN DE OPERACIONES FACTURADAS.
The ruling
In the same dispute over presumably non-existent transactions (article 69-B, Federal Tax Code), the company offered employment contracts and employee records. The Collegiate Circuit Court confirmed they carry no weight when headcount is inconsistent with invoiced volume, based on rules of experience about human productivity in manufacturing.
Our take
The court endorses an analysis SAT already applies: comparing people to output. If a small workforce invoices volumes it could not produce, employment contracts will not save the transaction. The court says this is not prejudice but a plausibility judgment. The weak spot is obvious: productivity varies widely with automation, permitted subcontracting or shift patterns. So the defense should not stop at showing payroll; it should explain how the volume was produced. Companies using small suppliers should run this analysis before contracting.
What to do
- Compare each supplier's registered headcount with the volume it invoices before contracting.
- Document automation, shifts and processes that explain above-average productivity.
- In defense, pair payroll records with technical evidence of how the volume was produced.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- (II Región)1o.5 A (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032639
- Published
- September 18, 2026
- Area
- Tax
- View official source ↗
Does this ruling affect your company? Let’s talk.
Schedule a conversationOther precedents in the same area
Prepared by Artegia for information only; not legal advice. Headings in English are unofficial translations. The official text is the one published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación or the TFJA journal.