Ernst & Young hopes for tax reform in Mexico in 2012

Mexico's tax system has been subject to dramatic changes over the years, resulting in an inefficient and misguided set of investment disincentives

Mexico’s tax system has been subject to dramatic changes over the years, resulting in an inefficient and misguided set of investment disincentives

It is likely that with the upcoming presidential elections in 2012, Mexico may see further substantial changes to its tax policy. The uncertainty of a solid economic recovery in Mexico until the US economy stabilises, coupled with the challenges faced by the Mexican government in its battle against the drug cartels may encourage the government to promote tax reforms in an effort to reinforce the country’s position in the international business community as having a competitive, yet stable and equitable tax regime.

According to the 2011 budget proposals, approximately 32 percent of Mexico’s annual spending is tied to revenues from the state-owned oil company, Petroleos Mexicanos. Most economists agree that Mexico must reduce its dependency on this company and increase its overall tax take by focusing on compliance and diversifying sources of tax income. Mexico’s total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP hovers around 17.5 percent: a rather low ratio compared with other OECD members, as well as to other countries in Latin America such as Brazil (currently 34.4 percent).

The current environment in Mexico includes tax assessments that may be large in Mexico because of interpretations of the law that are not always clear or in favour of the taxpayer, even in cases where tax planning is not involved.

Nevertheless, recently proposed reforms provide a framework for simplifying the system and laying the groundwork for positive changes that should relieve the tax environment in Mexico, increasing potential tax collections in a more equitable manner.

Current structure
Mexico’s current tax system consists primarily of three main federal taxes:
Income tax is currently imposed at a rate of 30 percent to net taxable income. Taxable income is generally determined on an accrual basis. One of the unique characteristics of the Mexican income tax is its use of inflation accounting. The corporate income tax rate was increased temporarily – beginning in 2010 at 30 percent – and is scheduled to be gradually reduced back to 28 percent by 2014.

Mexico currently does not impose a tax on dividend distributions once the earnings are subject to income tax. Individuals pay income tax at graduated rates, up to the 30 percent maximum rate (also scheduled to go down to 28 percent by 2014).

Mexico is one of the few countries left in Latin America still requiring inflation accounting for income tax purposes. With inflation in recent years at close to five percent or less, the administrative cost for taxpayers to maintain the systems required for these calculations would hardly seem to justify the impact on the tax returns. Moreover, Mexican accounting rules have eliminated the need for inflation accounting, unless the inflation exceeds certain thresholds, leaving the inflation accounting requirement applicable exclusively for tax purposes.

A flat rate business tax is imposed on cash received from most business activities, less cash-based costs and expenses. This tax, in effect since 2008, is imposed at a rate of 17.5 percent. The income tax is creditable against this tax. Although the flat rate business tax works as an alternative minimum tax to the income tax, unlike alternative minimum taxes implemented in other countries, the flat rate business tax, once paid, is not creditable or otherwise recoverable against income tax.

Notable aspects of the flat rate business tax include the non-deductibility of interest and royalties paid to related parties. Although it has resulted in tax collections over the income tax base, since its inception it has consistently failed to meet the expected collection goals set forth in the annual budgets, generally by 25-30 percent. As a result, and given the additional compliance requirements it sets for taxpayers, many are of the opinion that the Mexican government should consider whether the IETU should be eliminated or, at a minimum, modified.

A value added tax is applied at a general rate of 16 percent to the sale of most goods and services. Notably exempt are food and medicines. Historically, the controversial issue for VAT each year is whether the taxable base should be broadened to include all goods and services.

In an attempt to fight perceived tax shelters the administration has established rules which adversely impact tax planning as well as possible new investment in the country. As mentioned above, the flat rate business tax disallows deductions for interest as well as royalty payments to related parties. This rule does not distinguish between types of royalties, which may include software or technical assistance subsequently sold to clients, thus resulting in almost a gross tax.

Mexican tax audits are becoming more common and taxpayers must carefully monitor the process as tax assessments will include penalties that can reach 100 percent, as well as inflation adjustments and interest that can average one or two percent per month. With these costs to contend with, taxpayers must carefully evaluate tax positions prior to implementing transactions or structuring operations. The tax law is, in some cases, unclear and subject to interpretation, which mkes the evaluation process complicated. For example, transactions such as warranty or guarantee expenses can fall within the definition of penalties or fines which are generally not deductible. This wording of the lawputs the deduction of common business expenses at risk.

Learn from the region
Recently proposed tax reforms attempt to simplify Mexico’s tax system, by eliminating the second tier of tax (the flat rat business tax). However, some of these proposals maintain the non-deductibility of legitimate costs of operating in Mexico, such as the cost of royalties. Mexico is, and will remain in the likely future, a net importer of technology and services. Although it should encourage local development of technology, it will not achieve that objective by simply punishing its importation.

Other countries in the region have been successful in raising tax revenues by leveraging the use of indirect taxes. For example, a common tax observed in several countries in Latin America is the tax on bank transfers. This tax has proven to be effective, as a permanent or temporary fixture in countries such as Brazil, Venezuela and Colombia. The effectiveness of this tax derives from its ease of administration, since the banks, which are part of the formal economy and are heavily regulated, collect and remit the tax, thus generating a reliable tax collection process with little incentive for non-payment. In the case of Brazil, the tax is designed to encourage longer term investment, by imposing higher rates on transactions which are likely to trigger instability for the currency.

Overall Mexico has a real opportunity with a new administration to make positive changes to its tax policy, offering increased stability and reassurance to otherwise concerned investors.

Comments: 0
Join the discussion below

The May – June 2013 Issue

Highest corporate tax
rates in Europe

European countries are scrambling to raise every last penny of funds through taxes. But some countries may have gone too far...

Belgium

Though all business taxes in Belgium can be paid online with little effort and preparation, the rates are still sky-high at 57.7 percent, including a staggering 50.8 percent total rate on profits only in social security contributions.

Belarus

In Belarus, a company spends up to 338 hours annually preparing for and paying ten different taxes and duties. The total tax rate has incredibly been lowered to 60.7 percent, from 117.5 percent in 2008.

France

A company in France pays seven different taxes and duties, the sum of which can amount to 65.7 percent of profits; though President François Hollande has announced a wave of business tax rate cuts coming up.

Estonia

A business in Estonia pays 67.3 percent of profits in tax, 37.2 percent exclusively in social security contributions. The country has gone against the grain in Europe by raising businesses taxes from 48.6 percent in 2008 to the current rates.

Italy

While corporate income tax (IRES) in Italy is limited to 38 percent of taxable profit, a company operating in Italy can expect to pay 14 other taxes and duties, including social security contributions, bringing their total payable tax to 68.7 percent of profits, according to the World Bank.

Norway

Norway taxes motor fuels twice, with a road use tax and a CO2 emissions tax. Combined with strikes in the energy sector that have curbed output, the price of gas at a local pump has soared to $10.12 per gallon.

Turkey

Though Turkey sits on the Suez Canal and neighbours many oil rich countries, the price of a gallon of average gas clocks in at $9.41 in Turkish pumps, because of a 60 percent share of taxes. 

Israel

Like Turkey, Israel is surrounded by oil-rich neighbours, but drills very little itself. Gas prices are controlled by the government, so about half of the $9.28 per gallon goes to taxes.

Hong Kong

There are few gas stations in Hong Kong, but the ones available charge up to 76 percent more per gallon than mainland China, where the government caps the cost of fuel. A gallon at the pumps will cost around $8.61 on the island.

Netherlands

Expensive labour costs make the Dutch petrol prices the dearest in Europe, at $8.26 per gallon; though the 57 percent tax add-ons don’t help.

The credit crisis

8 February 2007
HSBC warns of subprime mortgage losses

2 April 2007
New Century goes bus

14 September 2007
Wholesale markets have dried up

17 March 2008
Rescue of Bear Stearns

7 September 2008
Rescue of Fannie Mae

15 September 2008
Lehman Brothers file for bankruptcy

3 October 2008
US congress approves $700bn bailout

14 February 2009
$787bn stimulus approved by congress

 

The effects of the current financial crisis are global and irrefutable. With the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the domino effect of irresponsible public monetary policies, huge levels of unsustainable debt, and a deregulated financial sector, has escalated to the point where no corner of the globe has been left untouched.

1973 oil crisis

October 1973
Syria and Egypt launch an attack on Israel on Yom Kippur and set off a twenty day war;

1977
US President Carter creates Department of Energy, which develops the US strategic petroleum reserve

 

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) used their oil reserves as a weapon with the Arab Oil Embargo against those who supported Israel. By January 1974, world oil prices were four times higher than they were at the start of the crisis, especially in the US, and the shock led to a huge drop in the stock market with NYSE losing $97bn in just six weeks.  The embargo lasted five months, and the effects are still seen today.

German hyperinflation

1922-1923

Hyperinflation
1923 – 1924
Stabilisation

 

The trouble began when Germany missed a repatriation payment, worth about one third of the German deficit in this period. Inflation was already high but by 1923 it was raging. Prices doubled within hours, and by late 1923, it cost 200bn marks to buy a single loaf of bread. People burned money as it was cheaper than buying firewood. Germany eventually regained control of its economy when it introduced the Rentenmark into circulation in 1923, and then the Reichmark in 1924.

The Great Depression

1929-1933
The Great Crash
1934-1939
Recovery and Recession

 

After the decadence of the Roaring Twenties, the 1930s saw the biggest economic slump of all time. The stock market crashed on 29 October 1929, and optimism and decadent living tumbled along with the figures. The GDP fell from $103.6bn in 1929, to $66bn in 1934 and the subsequent years of recovery were the most dramatic in US history.

1907 bankers’ panic

1907
Otto Heinze and his brother Augustus Heinze bought shares of United Copper.

 

The stock market was already cautious over the tight money supply, but the US was thrown into a depression after the stock market fell nearly 50 percent from its peak in 1906. The Heinze brothers thought they could influence market shares but ended up bankrupting lenders that provided the financing to buy the stock. A chain reaction left nine institutions bankrupt. By February 1908, the panic was over and the government created the Federal Reserve system, to prevent banks from exercising too much control over the economy.