Substance evidence must be weighed by reason, not formulas or gut feeling
Presumption of non-existent transactions covered by tax invoices. The analysis of the evidence offered by the taxpayer to rebut it must follow the system of free rational assessment.
Official heading (Spanish): PRESUNCIÓN DE INEXISTENCIA DE OPERACIONES AMPARADAS EN COMPROBANTES FISCALES. EL ANÁLISIS DE LAS PRUEBAS APORTADAS POR LA PERSONA CONTRIBUYENTE PARA DESVIRTUARLA DEBE REGIRSE POR EL SISTEMA DE LIBRE VALORACIÓN RACIONAL.
The ruling
In the same dispute, the company challenged how the TFJA weighed its evidence. The Collegiate Circuit Court held that, against the article 69-B presumption, free rational assessment applies: no document automatically proves substance, but the judge also cannot dismiss evidence with generic statements; reasoning must rest on logic, rules of experience and established scientific knowledge.
Our take
This is the method precedent in the series, and it cuts both ways. Against the taxpayer: no bundle of documents wins on its own, since that would revive a fixed-value evidence system. For the taxpayer: the judge must state reasons and cannot dismiss evidence with stock phrases. For the defense, this defines the task: build a coherent account of how the transaction happened and, on appeal, flag every dismissal lacking reviewable reasoning. In our view, this is the series' most useful precedent for litigation.
What to do
- Present substance as a coherent account of the transaction, not a list of documents.
- On appeal, flag each piece of evidence dismissed with generic statements lacking verifiable reasoning.
- Use technical expert evidence for transactions whose execution requires specialized knowledge.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- (II Región)1o.2 A (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032640
- Published
- September 18, 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.