Adding up weak evidence does not make it sufficient to prove substance
Presumption of non-existent transactions covered by tax invoices. If the evidence offered to rebut it is individually dismissed for failing to establish a suitable base fact, it cannot be assessed jointly, since it lacks the potential to support a valid inference.
Official heading (Spanish): PRESUNCIÓN DE INEXISTENCIA DE OPERACIONES AMPARADAS EN COMPROBANTES FISCALES. SI LAS PRUEBAS APORTADAS PARA DESVIRTUARLA SON DESESTIMADAS DE MANERA INDIVIDUAL AL NO ACREDITAR UN HECHO BASE IDÓNEO, NO ES DABLE REALIZAR SU VALORACIÓN CONJUNTA, AL NO TENER EL POTENCIAL DE CONFORMAR UNA INFERENCIA VÁLIDA.
The ruling
The company argued the TFJA failed to analyze its evidence as a whole. The Collegiate Circuit Court held that, against the article 69-B presumption, if each piece is individually dismissed as generic, irrelevant or unconnected, joint assessment does not apply: it presupposes converging base facts, and without them no inference is possible.
Our take
This disables a common amparo argument: "the Chamber did not weigh the evidence as a whole." If no single piece establishes a base fact, the whole adds nothing. The logic is sound: zero plus zero is zero. In practice, each piece must prove something specific, even partially: a delivery, a shipment, a person who performed the service. For the defense, present evidence stating which base fact each item proves and how it connects to the rest.
What to do
- Present each piece of evidence stating the specific base fact it proves.
- Drop generic evidence that does not establish a verifiable base fact.
- Do not rest the amparo solely on lack of joint assessment if individual evidence is weak.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- (II Región)1o.3 A (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032642
- 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.