No duty to keep accounting records means SAT cannot demand proof of substance
Presumption of non-existent transactions. If the taxpayer is not required to keep accounting records, the taxpayer cannot be required to prove the substance of its transactions either.
Official heading (Spanish): PRESUNCIÓN DE INEXISTENCIA DE OPERACIONES. SI LA PERSONA CONTRIBUYENTE NO ESTÁ OBLIGADA A LLEVAR CONTABILIDAD, TAMPOCO LE ES EXIGIBLE QUE ACREDITE LA MATERIALIDAD DE SUS OPERACIONES.
The ruling
SAT issued an income tax assessment against an individual not required to keep accounting records, applying the presumption that bank deposits are income. The TFJA annulled it and the Collegiate Circuit Court affirmed: the presumption in article 59, section III, of the Federal Tax Code assumes a duty to keep accounting records; without it, the taxpayer cannot be required to prove the substance of its transactions.
Our take
This curbs a common practice in audits of individuals: applying the bank-deposit presumption to someone the law does not require to keep accounting records, and then demanding support they had no duty to retain. The court adds that presuming income on amounts already reported in the annual return before the audit is unlawful. The reach is narrow: it helps individuals outside regimes that require accounting. For companies and individuals with business activities, proof of substance is still required and SAT's standard has not eased.
What to do
- In audits of individuals, first check whether they were required to keep accounting records for the year under review.
- Match the deposits at issue against what was already reported in the annual return before the audit.
- Cite this precedent and SCJN ruling 39/2010 when challenging the income presumption.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- II.2o.A.75 A (11a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032572
- Published
- August 28, 2026
- Area
- Tax
- View official source ↗
Does this ruling affect your company? Let’s talk.
Schedule a conversationOther precedents in the same area
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.