TFJA expert reports: the deadline runs from the warning order, not acceptance
Expert evidence in federal nullity proceedings. The period for experts to submit their report must be counted from the day after service on the offering party of the order warning of the consequences of late submission takes effect, not from acceptance of the appointment.
Official heading (Spanish): PRUEBA PERICIAL EN EL JUICIO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO FEDERAL. EL PLAZO PARA QUE LAS PERSONAS PERITAS RINDAN SU DICTAMEN DEBE COMPUTARSE A PARTIR DEL DÍA SIGUIENTE AL EN QUE SURTA EFECTOS LA NOTIFICACIÓN DEL ACUERDO DE APERCIBIMIENTO A LA PARTE OFERENTE EN CASO DE NO RENDIRLO OPORTUNAMENTE, Y NO DESDE LA ACEPTACIÓN DEL CARGO.
The ruling
In a nullity action, the authority alleged the complaint's signature was forged and experts were appointed. The plaintiff's expert accepted the appointment and the warning order issued that day was served through the court bulletin. The report was rejected as late. The Collegiate Circuit Court held that the period under article 43, section III, of the federal administrative procedure law runs from when that service takes effect.
Our take
The ruling gives a few extra days and, more importantly, a clear rule: making sure the report arrives on time is the offering party's burden, so the deadline depends on serving that party with the warning. In practice, do not count on the margin. Many expert reports are lost because the expert and the lawyer compute the deadline differently. The law firm, not the expert, should control the deadline, and the report should be filed before the most conservative due date.
What to do
- Track the expert report deadline within the firm rather than leaving it to the expert.
- Compute the due date conservatively and file early.
- If rejected as late, check when service of the warning order took effect.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- VI.3o.A.56 A (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032498
- Published
- August 14, 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.