Mexican Fiscal Reform 2025 and reality of economic activities.

The 2025 fiscal reform in Mexico deserves close attention, not because it is another routine amendment to the Federal Tax Code, but because it redefines the way the tax authority communicates with taxpayers, supervises their activity and evaluates their conduct. The changes are substantive. They modify expectations, reshape the audit process and require a more proactive approach to compliance.

At the center of this reform is Article 49 BIS, a new procedural provision that establishes the steps the authority must follow during audit procedures involving potentially non-authentic CFDI (Comprobante Fiscal Digital por Internet). Its introduction reflects a broader shift toward earlier notification, greater transparency and a more direct involvement of corporate governing bodies. To understand this article, it is necessary to view it within the wider context of the reform, which includes new rules on CFDI validity, tighter controls on RFC (Registro Federal de Contribuyentes) registration and expanded evidentiary powers for the authority.

Although nothing new in the objective, this reform marks a new stage in Mexico’s enforcement strategy. For more than a decade, the tax administration has relied heavily on CFDI and digital reporting to monitor economic activity. Although this system has increased transparency, it has been affected by schemes involving false invoices, shell entities and simulated operations. The 2025 reform responds to these risks by strengthening preventive mechanisms and enhancing supervisory tools. One example is the expansion of suspension measures for CFDI issuance.

When inconsistencies arise regarding the authenticity or economic substance of operations, the authority may temporarily block a taxpayer’s ability to issue invoices, ensuring that CFDI correspond to real, lawful and verifiable acts. The reform also tightens access to the RFC by allowing the authority to deny registration to entities whose representatives or ANY structural members fall under the assumptions of Articles 17-H and 17-H BIS, which relate to simulated operations, irregular tax behavior or non-located taxpayers. These measures seek to prevent the formation of entities created solely to evade tax obligations.

Article 49 BIS introduces a specific audit procedure. It begins with a visit order that outlines the reasons why the authority considers that certain CFDI may not reflect real operations. Upon notification of this order, the suspension of CFDI issuance takes effect immediately and remains in force until the procedure concludes. The protections of Article 17-H Bis do not apply in this context, and the temporary inability to issue invoices can interrupt operations. The visit may occur at the taxpayer’s fiscal domicile, branches, warehouses, offices or any location where the activities described in the CFDI supposedly take place. The purpose is to allow the authority to verify directly whether the economic reality behind the invoices exists.

The article grants the taxpayer the right to challenge the presumption that the CFDI are false for not complying with Article 29-A, section IX, which requires that invoices reflect real, existing and lawful acts. Evidence must therefore be specific and must clearly indicate what it seeks to demonstrate. In practice, the taxpayer must show that the operations are real, that the activities occurred as described, that goods or services were actually delivered or provided, or that the underlying acts possess economic substance.

This procedural structure cannot be understood without reference to Articles 29-A and 29-A Bis, which reinforce the duty that CFDI correspond to existing and truthful acts. When receipts fail to meet these standards, or when the taxpayer does not follow the clarification procedure provided in Article 49 A Bis, the receipts are deemed false for tax purposes. This presumption has material effects on deductions, credits and the taxpayer’s overall tax position. Article 49 BIS strengthens this framework by ensuring that taxpayers receive timely notice of concerns that could ultimately justify the classification of their CFDI as false.

Ultimately, Article 49 BIS promotes earlier awareness of potential irregularities and encourages taxpayers to adopt a more proactive posture. The 2025 reform signals a significant shift toward preventive oversight, enhanced transparency and rigorous validation of economic substance. To navigate this new environment effectively, taxpayers must strengthen internal controls, update compliance systems and maintain close attention to audit communications and procedural developments.

For MCORE LAW, this shift underscores the importance of adopting a preventive compliance model that safeguards operations before an audit begins. Strengthening documentation protocols, implementing real-time CFDI validation systems, and establishing governance procedures capable of demonstrating economic substance are no longer optional measures but essential safeguards. By integrating continuous monitoring and robust internal controls, taxpayers can mitigate exposure, preserve transactional integrity and maintain operational continuity, positioning themselves to interact with the authority from a posture of certainty and preparedness.