Executive answer
Criterion 44/ISR/PI in Exhibit 3 of Mexico’s 2026 Miscellaneous Tax Resolution identifies deducting service expenses without proving that the services were actually rendered as an improper tax practice. It expresses an administrative position and a clear audit signal; it is not an article of the Income Tax Law and does not by itself turn every documentation weakness into a final conclusion.
For intragroup services, the file should separate existence, recipient, benefit, business connection, deductibility, cost base, allocation key, markup, invoice, accounting and payment. A transfer pricing study can support the amount but does not by itself show that a person performed the activity.
Verification cutoff: August 2, 2026. Exhibit 3 was published January 9, 2026 and its first amendment on July 17. Confirm the applicable text and status before responding to an audit.
Correct status
It is an administrative improper-practice criterion compiled in Exhibit 3. Call it an administrative criterion, not a new materiality law.
Legal basis and defenses require Mexican statutes and facts.
What it states
Its core concern is failure to prove actual provision. The inquiry does not end with a contract, invoice or payment.
The company should show conduct and delivery.
What it does not decide
It does not establish a universal document list, markup, sample or retention period for every service. It does not replace arm’s-length proof.
The file depends on nature and frequency.
Inventory
List provider, recipient, service, people, period, agreement, invoice, cost, key, deliverable and payment. Disaggregate management fees.
Without an inventory, sampling is not defensible.
Request
Keep tickets, orders, email, agendas or plans showing need and requester. For recurring services, document annual scope and activations.
Avoid after-the-fact requests.
Provision
Identify who did what, when, where, through which system and for whom. Use operating records.
A department name is not proof.
Request a materiality review to connect every charge with request, provider, activity, deliverable, benefit, cost, price, invoice, recording and payment.
Deliverable
Not every service creates a report. It may produce configuration, access, a decision, training or ticket resolution. Define suitable evidence.
Preserve acceptance or use.
Benefit
Explain why an independent party would pay for or perform the activity. Link it to a decision, process, saving, compliance or capability.
Avoid generic benefit statements.
Recipient
Show which entity and function received the work. A regional allocation does not prove individual benefit.
Assign a local validator.
Shareholder activity
Separate parent governance, share issuance, owner consolidation and other activities that do not benefit the recipient as a service.
Remove those costs from the pool.
Duplication
Compare local functions and third parties. Document why overlap was necessary, temporary or incremental.
Do not charge twice.
Provider capacity
Map personnel, experience, time, systems and subcontractors. Reconcile payroll and agreements.
A provider without resources needs explanation.
Cost base
Trace accounts from the ledger. Exclude shareholder, unrelated, exceptional and double-recovered items. Identify pass-through costs.
Preserve a reproducible bridge.
Allocation key
Link it to expected benefit. Test population, data, exceptions and stability.
Revenue is not suitable for every service.
Markup
Select the method and benchmark. Distinguish high-value, low-value, reimbursement and third-party components.
Do not apply one rate without analysis.
Agreement
It describes scope, price, key, rights, responsibility, termination and evidence. Compare with conduct.
Do not cure nonexistent facts through backdating.
Invoice and Mexican receipt
The description links to inventory and period. Reconcile currency, taxes and accounts.
Avoid an opaque annual invoice.
Payment
Keep approval, bank record, intercompany account and settlement. Explain offsets.
Payment does not prove provision but completes the chain.
Accounting
Trace journal, account, cost center and recipient. Reconcile provider and Mexico.
Inconsistent classification raises questions.
Deductibility
Analyze statutory requirements beyond materiality: business necessity, receipt, withholding, payment, recording and applicable limitations.
Do not confuse one element with all.
Price
After proving existence and benefit, test arm’s-length pricing through the method, comparables and conclusion.
A correct price for a nonexistent service does not create a deduction.
Layered matrix
Layer one is transaction; two, provision; three, benefit; four, costs and allocation; five, price; six, tax and accounting.
Every layer has evidence and an owner.
Sampling
Select by amount, risk, novelty, provider, description and unpaid status. Include different months.
Document the universe and selection.
Repository
Organize by service and period. Use naming, permissions, retention and version control.
Do not depend on one person’s mailbox.
Monthly certification
The provider certifies activity; recipient, benefit; accounting, cost and recording; tax, pricing and compliance.
Escalate exceptions.
Audit
Centralize the response. Provide an index and narrative rather than isolated files. Reconcile with the study and returns.
Do not fabricate or misdate evidence.
Conclusive agreement
Where an audit has characterized facts, assess eligibility and the file. PRODECON does not replace proof.
Quantify regularization and alternatives.
Defense
Separate fact, inference and argument. Cite the criterion with correct status. Legal reviews scope.
Search relevant judgments and criteria.
Digital services
For SaaS, separate license, access, support and service. Preserve logs and users.
Do not rely only on a purchase order.
Strategic services
Document agenda, analysis, decisions and participants. Protect confidentiality through an index and protocol.
A generic presentation is weak evidence.
Recurring services
Use monthly evidence instead of annual reconstruction. Define samples and certification.
Update when scope changes.
Warning signs
Warnings include a generic invoice, backdated agreement, provider without people, identical deliverable for all recipients, unsupported key, unreconciled pool, no recipient, unpaid balance or study as sole evidence.
Remediate promptly.
Checklist
Confirm request, provider, people, activity, deliverable, recipient, benefit, shareholder activity, duplication, costs, key, markup, agreement, invoice, tax, accounting and payment.
Assign a traffic light.
Illustrative example
A parent charges human resources, IT and strategy. Mexico separates the three services, identifies personnel, gathers tickets and minutes, removes shareholder governance, changes keys and reconciles costs. It then tests the markup.
The file no longer depends on an invoice.
Materiality Defense Pack product
It includes the inventory, sample, layered matrix, reconciliation, benefit test, cost base, allocation, pricing, index and gaps. It distinguishes existing evidence from prospective remediation.
It does not manufacture historical documents.
Governance
The CFO sponsors; tax defines requirements; legal reviews agreements; providers create evidence; recipients validate; accounting reconciles; internal audit tests.
The control is continuous.
Executive evidence gate
Before a material charge is deducted, the owner confirms that service, benefit, cost, allocation and price files are complete. Missing evidence triggers remediation or escalation rather than automatic booking.
The gate does not decide law by checklist, but ensures management sees the weakness before filing.
Evidence standard by service type
Useful proof varies by activity. For technology, combine tickets, access logs, released changes, user inventories and recipient acceptance. For human resources, use requests, completed processes, communications, reports and benefited populations while protecting personal data. For treasury, identify decisions, instructions, reconciliations and outcomes. For strategy, distinguish operating advice from shareholder oversight.
Do not demand an artificial deliverable where a continuous service naturally creates interactions. Build cumulative evidence through agendas, participants, topics, decisions, follow-up and expected effect. Nor should document volume replace relevance. Each item should help answer who did what, for whom, when and toward what result.
Thirty-day remediation plan
First freeze the charge inventory and assign a service owner. In week one gather agreements, invoices, accounts, providers, recipients and allocation bases. In week two select a materiality-and-risk sample, request provider evidence and validate receipt with Mexican users. In week three reconcile costs, remove shareholder activities and duplication, and test allocation keys. In week four document gaps, the tax decision and prospective controls.
Remediation must not manufacture historical emails, minutes or deliverables. Where proof does not exist, record the limitation and assess the consequence. Improve the future process through formal requests, periodic acceptance and a repository. A transparent gap is more defensible than a document created to simulate past performance.
Adversarial audit rehearsal
Ask an independent reviewer to take the tax authority’s perspective. Provide only the file index and require the reviewer to locate the provider, activity, recipient, benefit, cost, allocation, price, invoice, accounting and payment. Then challenge the narrative: why was the work not performed locally, what changed because Mexico received it, why does everyone use the same key, and where are the provider’s people?
Record unanswered questions, ambiguous documents and unreconciled figures. Classify whether the response needs evidence, explanation, accounting correction or legal analysis. Retest after remediation. The exercise cannot guarantee deductibility, but it reveals where the story depends on unsupported assertions before an actual audit does.
Charge certification and reconciliation
The service owner certifies scope and recipients; provider finance certifies the pool; Mexican accounting reconciles invoice and entry; tax reviews deductibility and transfer pricing; legal confirms the agreement. Certification should cite specific files and periods. A generic year-end signature does not prove the control operated.
Build a bridge from incurred costs to the charged amount: opening pool, inclusions, exclusions, shareholder costs, pass-through amounts, allocation key, Mexican share, markup, tax and payment. Explain differences from budget and prior year. The same bridge should feed the study, returns and audit response so incompatible figures do not emerge.
Executive decision thresholds
Define which gaps can be fixed operationally and which require the CFO or tax committee. Escalate missing performance, a provider without capacity, a material unreconciled charge, possible shareholder activity, a key unrelated to benefit, an agreement inconsistent with conduct or exposure affecting financial statements. Present the amount, facts, options, deadline and residual risk.
Management may stop, adjust, provide, request more evidence or defend the charge. Date the decision and link it to the file. A green traffic light is not an automatic legal conclusion; it governs the process without replacing professional judgment.
Retention, access and privilege
Set retention periods under applicable duties and litigation policy. Preserve versions, metadata and original sources. Restrict personal data, trade secrets and sensitive communications by role without making operational evidence impossible to find. A broken link or a departed employee’s mailbox can destroy proof that once existed.
Legal should separate the ordinary file from communications that may receive confidential or privileged treatment under the facts. Do not label everything privileged. The objective is accessible, authentic and governed evidence throughout the defense cycle.
Conclusion
Criterion 44/ISR/PI makes an elementary question visible: did the service occur? Its administrative status should be stated accurately.
The best response is not more paper, but a coherent chain from need to payment followed by separate pricing and deductibility analysis.
Request a Materiality Defense Pack to build service-level evidence, reconcile charges and prepare a defensible response.
Verified official sources
- Official Gazette, Exhibit 3 of the 2026 rules, January 9, 2026 publication.
- SAT, 2026 tax rules microsite.
- Official Gazette, first amendment to Exhibit 3 published July 17, 2026.
- Mexican Chamber of Deputies, current Income Tax Law.
- Mexican Chamber of Deputies, current Federal Tax Code.
Verification closed on August 2, 2026. The criterion is administrative and should be analyzed with legislation and facts.