How strong your evidence must be to defeat a non-existent transactions finding
Presumption of non-existent transactions covered by tax invoices. Standard of proof to consider it sufficiently rebutted.
Official heading (Spanish): PRESUNCIÓN DE INEXISTENCIA DE OPERACIONES AMPARADAS EN COMPROBANTES FISCALES. ESTÁNDAR DE PRUEBA PARA ESTIMARLA SUFICIENTEMENTE DESVIRTUADA.
The ruling
The TFJA upheld an assessment because the company failed to prove operating capacity, and the company argued an excessive standard was applied. The Collegiate Circuit Court set two conditions to rebut the article 69-B presumption: the taxpayer's account must be more probably true than the authority's, and the body of evidence must be contextually complete for the case.
Our take
Finally, an explicit standard, and it is better for taxpayers than it looks. It does not require absolute certainty, only that the taxpayer's account be more probable than the authority's. The second condition is the demanding one: the evidence must be complete for the type of transaction. A transport service needs different proof than contract manufacturing. For companies, the practical exercise is asking what evidence a reasonable outsider would expect for that specific transaction, and checking that it exists. Obvious gaps are what lose cases.
What to do
- Define, by transaction type, what evidence should exist for it to be considered complete.
- Review transactions with risky suppliers and close evidentiary gaps before an audit.
- In litigation, argue expressly that the company's account is the most probable one.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- (II Región)1o.1 A (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032641
- Published
- September 18, 2026
- Area
- Tax litigation
- View official source ↗
Does this ruling affect your company? Let’s talk.
Schedule a conversationOther precedents in the same area
- Conagua: without prior alert, water-mailbox service is unlawful
- Poorly grounded delegation to report audit findings leads to remand, not annulment
- Nullity complaint by mail: no proof of exact hour when time compensation applies
- Garnishment via the tax mailbox is clearly defined and respects legal certainty
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.