IMSS dismissal of an employer self-correction can be challenged before the TFJA
Federal contentious administrative proceeding. It is available against the IMSS notice declaring an employer correction procedure abandoned.
Official heading (Spanish): JUICIO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO FEDERAL. PROCEDE CONTRA EL OFICIO DEL INSTITUTO MEXICANO DEL SEGURO SOCIAL (IMSS) MEDIANTE EL CUAL DECLARA ABANDONADO EL TRÁMITE DE CORRECCIÓN PATRONAL.
The ruling
A company challenged before the TFJA an IMSS ruling declaring its employer correction procedure abandoned. The Chamber dismissed the case, reasoning the procedure could simply be restarted. On direct amparo, the Collegiate Circuit Court disagreed: abandonment works as a final denial, because a new request can only cover the immediately preceding year, so the chance to correct the original year is lost.
Our take
The court rejects an easy shortcut. Dismissing a case because the employer can "start over" ignores that, in an employer correction, starting over means switching to a different year. The court looks at the real consequence, not the label on the notice. This matters to employers using the correction to avoid an IMSS field audit. In our experience, abandonment usually follows poorly handled information requests or missed internal deadlines. A defense now exists, but avoiding the situation is still better. The underlying reasoning, that the procedure is rule-bound rather than discretionary, can support challenges to other IMSS rulings.
What to do
- If IMSS declared a correction procedure abandoned, calculate the deadline for a nullity action before the TFJA right away.
- Assign an owner and a timeline to every IMSS information request within the correction procedure.
- Cite this precedent if the Chamber raises lack of finality as grounds for dismissal.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- VI.3o.A.35 A (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032331
- Published
- June 26, 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.