VAT on mixed activities: without an accounting expert, apportionment is hard to avoid
Value added tax. For crediting purposes, as a general rule, accounting expert evidence is the appropriate means to determine in what proportion the apportionment factor should apply when the use of expenses from mixed activities cannot be identified.
Official heading (Spanish): IMPUESTO AL VALOR AGREGADO. PARA EFECTO DE SU ACREDITAMIENTO, POR REGLA GENERAL, LA PRUEBA PERICIAL CONTABLE ES EL ELEMENTO DE CONVICCIÓN IDÓNEO PARA DETERMINAR EN QUÉ PROPORCIÓN DEBE APLICARSE EL FACTOR DE PRORRATEO CUANDO NO ES POSIBLE IDENTIFICAR EL DESTINO DE LOS GASTOS DERIVADOS DE LA REALIZACIÓN DE ACTIVIDADES MIXTAS.
The ruling
A company with taxable and exempt activities challenged a tax assessment because the SAT applied the apportionment factor under article 5, section V, subsection c), of the VAT Law to all its creditable VAT. It argued its accounting did identify how expenses were used. The Collegiate Circuit Court held that, as a general rule, the appropriate evidence to prove this is an accounting expert report.
Our take
This ruling shifts the dispute from argument to evidence. Saying the accounting records show where each expense went is not enough; the court wants an expert to prove it to a technical standard. It affects companies with mixed income: real estate, education, financial services, groups with exempt operations. In our experience, this defense is won before the audit, with accounting that tracks expenses by activity from the outset. If the matter reaches a nullity action before the TFJA, the expert report should be offered with the complaint, not as a late add-on.
What to do
- Set up accounting to trace each expense to taxable or exempt activities.
- Offer accounting expert evidence with the nullity complaint whenever apportionment is disputed.
- Select the expert early and prepare the supporting documents they will review.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- III.7o.A.4 A (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032697
- Published
- October 2, 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.