If the Mexican taxpayer finds its accounting, haciendas checks should be developed before the certifying accountant.

The SAT Mexico issued a decree that empowered the taxpayers forced to rule by counter authorized public could choose not to comply in 2010 with this obligation, enshrined in Article 32-A first fraction and 16 of the Law on Social Insurance. This decree sets in the third article in a right optional at the discretion the taxpayer can decide between accounting rule or not. The reality is that it is advisable for administration and internal control activities continue ruling taxpayers, which from the decree as indicated and is optional. This article deals with the effects of home visits aimed to taxpayers when they decide even discriminate.

Minimum requirements for the acts of authority in Mexico

The first paragraph of Article 16 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States imposes the obligation of citizens to tolerate acts of authority provided that they are properly grounded, motivated and are issued in writing. Understood properly founded the act provides that the issuing authority on competition, form and substance, necessary items and exactly applicable to the case in support of its action. And for reasons that the authority itself must state in its decision the reasons of competition, which took form and consider both to issue the act to solve a certain way. So, whatever the act of nuisance, as well as covering other rules of procedure in any case must satisfy three minimum elements of legal certainty: writing, proper foundation and motivation.

tax-audit

Effects of minimum tax on advice Mexican

Even where the taxpayer is authorized by Public Accountant dictates the tax authority has the obligation to comply with the above requirements, especially by virtue of Article 52-A of the Federal Tax Code, when the taxpayer finds, checks made by the tax authority shall be made with the authorized public accountant ruled exercise.

Validity of direct verification with the Mexican taxpayer

However, using criteria jurisprudential January 2010, the Federal Court of Fiscal and Administrative Justice ruled that if the taxpayer dictate your counter Contaminator find:

1. irregularities,
2. qualifications,
3. issues a negative opinion
4. tax or omissions exist in favor of the Federal Treasury,

So, in these cases, the Federal Tax Authority has no obligation to go to the counter to check the taxpayer contaminator ruled and irregular, but may do so directly with the taxpayer ignored. The only condition is that it requires the court to verify the authority exercised precisely accurately substantiate and motivate the causes why the verification is not meant to counter Contaminator. This situation follows from the following transcript of January 2010 criteria and then quoted in part:

The opinion is half of fiscal control in Mexico

In conclusion: The taxpayer who decides rule shall consider the opinion today is an internal control of accounting and irregularities if found it is best to immediately solve them with the tax authorities and avoid penalties for omissions. Also one must consider that encase of default the tax authority can go directly to ignore and not with your accountant contaminator.