Tax-mailbox garnishment without a prior hearing is upheld as constitutional
Garnishment through the tax mailbox. Article 151 Bis of the Federal Tax Code, which provides for it, does not violate the right to a hearing.
Official heading (Spanish): EMBARGO POR BUZÓN TRIBUTARIO. EL ARTÍCULO 151 BIS DEL CÓDIGO FISCAL DE LA FEDERACIÓN QUE LO PREVÉ, NO VULNERA EL DERECHO DE AUDIENCIA.
The ruling
In the same case, the taxpayers argued that tax-mailbox garnishment violates the right to a prior hearing. The Collegiate Circuit Court applied by analogy the SCJN's precedent on bank account freezes under article 156-Bis: the garnishment rests on an enforceable assessment already served, and the taxpayer can still pay to release the assets and challenge the act.
Our take
The logic is familiar: the hearing happened when the assessment was issued, not when it is collected. So mailbox garnishment requires no additional notice. The court notes the taxpayer may pay before auction to release the assets, under articles 178 and 195 of the Federal Tax Code. For companies, the real risk is operational, not constitutional: a final assessment nobody tracked can turn into garnishment without further warning. We recommend an inventory of outstanding tax assessments, with their procedural status and security.
What to do
- Keep an inventory of tax assessments with procedural status, security and finality date.
- Decide who authorizes payment or security when an assessment becomes final.
- If garnishment occurs, consider paying to release assets before auction.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- I.11o.A.5 A (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032738
- Published
- October 9, 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.