A generic loan-for-use agreement does not prove a supplier's real capacity
Presumption of non-existent transactions covered by tax invoices. Generically drafted loan-for-use (comodato) agreements must be denied evidentiary value because they cannot show real operating capacity to prove substance.
Official heading (Spanish): PRESUNCIÓN DE INEXISTENCIA DE OPERACIONES AMPARADAS EN COMPROBANTES FISCALES. DEBE NEGARSE VALOR PROBATORIO A LOS CONTRATOS DE COMODATO REDACTADOS DE FORMA GENÉRICA AL NO SER SUSCEPTIBLES DE EVIDENCIAR CAPACIDAD OPERATIVA REAL PARA ACREDITAR SU MATERIALIDAD.
The ruling
In a desk audit, the authority presumed several transactions non-existent under article 69-B of the Federal Tax Code and issued a tax assessment. To prove substance, the company submitted loan-for-use agreements for machinery. The TFJA gave them no weight and the Collegiate Circuit Court agreed: a generic agreement, without detail of the assets or links to what was invoiced, is mere paperwork.
Our take
This precedent is part of a series from the same court on substance, and all of them point the same way: documents alone no longer persuade. A loan-for-use agreement listing "machinery and tools" without identifying the equipment, its location or its link to the invoiced transactions does not prove operating capacity. The court's rule of experience is simple: large transactions are documented in detail. In our experience, many substance files are assembled after the audit begins, using template contracts. That is exactly the material this precedent discards.
What to do
- Identify equipment in each asset-use contract by make, serial number, location and use.
- Expressly link contracted assets to the invoiced transactions and periods.
- Review substance files for key suppliers before any SAT audit.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- (II Región)1o.4 A (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032638
- Published
- September 18, 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.