.svg)
1. Historical Context: The 2026 Setback
At the beginning of fiscal year 2026, a rigid framework was implemented requiring taxpayers to use a deposit certificate as the primary mechanism to guarantee disputed tax liabilities.
This change derived from the November 2025 reform, which introduced a mandatory hierarchical order for granting guarantees of disputed tax liabilities. Under this scheme, taxpayers must provide a cash deposit as the primary form of guarantee, to the extent of their economic capacity, and may only resort to alternative forms of guarantee upon demonstrating the inability to comply with each preceding option in sequence.
It is important to note that, prior to the enactment of this reform, taxpayers were free to choose among various forms of guaranteeing disputed tax liabilities (bond, mortgage, pledge, administrative lien, etc.). Additionally, the new framework granted tax authorities discretionary powers to assess the taxpayer’s “economic capacity” when verifying compliance with the hierarchical order applicable as of fiscal year 2026.
• The issue: This measure immobilizes essential working capital, disproportionately affecting taxpayers’ liquidity, even before a final judgment is issued in related litigation.
This effectively requires taxpayers to forgo resources equivalent to the amount of the disputed tax liability until disputes are definitively resolved, which may take up to four or five years, depending on court backlogs, case complexity, procedural formalities, and other factors.
2. Analysis of the New Initiative
On March 19, 2026, an initiative submitted by the Federal Executive power to amend Article 141 of the Federal Tax Code (“CFF”) was published in the Parliamentary Gazette of the Chamber of Deputies. Its purpose is to correct the aforementioned rigidity by allowing taxpayers to regain the ability to freely choose among various forms of guaranteeing disputed tax liabilities, without a mandatory order of priority. In essence, the initiative seeks to revert to the framework in place prior to the 2026 reform.
Currently, taxpayers may guarantee disputed tax liabilities through the following mechanisms:
• Deposit certificate issued by an authorized institution, in an amount consistent with the taxpayer’s economic capacity, up to the applicable limit.
If such capacity is insufficient, the taxpayer must document the impossibility of using this method before opting for subsequent alternatives, always respecting the legally established order.
• Letter of credit, issued by an institution authorized by the National Banking and Securities Commission and registered with the Tax Administration Service (SAT).
• Pledge, excluding intangible assets and mortgage, as well as excluding certain types of real estate.
• Surety bond, issued by an authorized institution (one of the most commonly used options due to its cost-benefit).
• Joint liabilityassumed by a third party who demonstrates adequacy and solvency.
• Administrative lien in negotiations, tangible movable assets and real estate, excluding rural properties.
The new regulatory framework governing the guarantee of the tax interest has, in practice, imposed a potentially significant economic, evidentiary, and operational burden on taxpayers seeking to suspend administrative enforcement proceedings related to disputed tax liabilities under their charge that are currently being challenged through the corresponding legal measures.
It is important to highlight that the initiative does not eliminate the obligation to guarantee disputed tax liabilities when challenged through a revocation appeal. Accordingly, taxpayers must continue to guarantee disputed tax liabilities at that stage to prevent enforcement actions.
However, the option provided in the Twenty-Ninth Transitory Article of the 2026 Federal Revenue Law remains in force, allowing taxpayers who file a revocation appeal during that fiscal year to guarantee disputed tax liabilities within six months as from the filing date of the appeal.
3. Current Status of the Legislative Process
The legislative process has made significant progress in the following stages:
A. Chamber of Deputies: Approved on March 26, 2026, with 418 votes in favor and 35 abstentions.
B. Senate: The bill has been submitted to the Senate for discussion, possible amendments, and final approval.
C. Next step: Upon Senate ratification, the reform will be sent to the Federal Executive for publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF).
4. Key Impacts and Benefits
The legislative initiative proposes to amend the current framework by allowing taxpayers to freely select among authorized guarantee mechanisms, without being subject to a mandatory order. Key elements include:
• Disputed tax liabilities: The obligation to guarantee disputed tax liabilities remains in place, including inflation adjustments and related charges.
• Reduction of Administrative Burdens:Elimination of the requirement to provide documentary evidence of economic incapacity with respect to each form of guarantee
• Financial Efficiency:Replace the mandatory hierarchical order with the option to freely choose among authorized forms of security, thereby allowing taxpayers to retain their funds while litigation proceeds.
• Retroactive Effect:Taxpayers who provided guarantees between January 1, 2026, and the effective date of the reform may request substitution of such guarantees under the amended rules within thirty calendar days.
For guarantees already in place, substitution will not interrupt the suspension of administrative enforcement proceedings nor trigger additional requirements, and the authority must resolve the request within a period not exceeding twenty business days.
5. Conclusions and Outlook
• Procedural Balance:The reform represents progress toward balancing the State’s tax collection authority with taxpayers’ rights of legal defense.
• Legal Certainty:Restoring the system of free choice provides technical certainty to taxpayers and their advisors.
• Ease of Compliance: The reform aims to facilitate the process of guaranteeing disputed tax liabilities through mechanisms best suited to each taxpayer’s circumstances.
• Recommendation: Close monitoring of publication in the DOF is essential. In the interim, defense strategies should remain cautious, as the restrictive order remains in force until the reform officially takes effect.
If approved, this initiative will grant taxpayers greater flexibility in selecting guarantee mechanisms and adjust the conditions applicable to guarantees already in place.
