SAT's 69-B 'non-existent transactions' procedure has no five-year time bar
Procedure for the presumption of non-existent transactions supported by digital tax receipts (CFDI). The statute of limitations (caducidad) under article 67 of the Federal Tax Code does not apply to it.
Official heading (Spanish): PROCEDIMIENTO DE PRESUNCIÓN DE INEXISTENCIA DE OPERACIONES AMPARADAS EN COMPROBANTES FISCALES DIGITALES POR INTERNET. LE ES INAPLICABLE EL PLAZO DE CADUCIDAD PREVISTO EN EL ARTÍCULO 67 DEL CÓDIGO FISCAL DE LA FEDERACIÓN.
The ruling
A company challenged the final resolution in the article 69-B Federal Tax Code procedure, where it failed to rebut the presumption that its invoiced transactions did not exist. It asked for the five-year time bar of article 67 to apply by analogy. The Collegiate Circuit Court refused: 69-B is a management and oversight mechanism, not an audit power, and is not subject to that time bar.
Our take
This ruling is uncomfortable for both issuers and recipients of invoices. By treating 69-B as a management power, the court lets the SAT examine old transactions without the article 67 limit. The nuance worth keeping is that the time bar still applies to later audit powers against those who deducted those invoices. In other words, the issuer may be blacklisted, but disallowing the recipient's deductions has its own deadline. As an isolated precedent, it leaves room to keep arguing the time bar, but not to rely on it alone.
What to do
- Keep evidence of transaction substance beyond the general five-year period.
- In the defense, separate the issuer's blacklisting from the time bar on audits of the recipient.
- Monitor 69-B lists for past suppliers, not only current ones.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- VI.3o.A.62 A (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032750
- 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.