Executive answer
A conclusive agreement is an alternative mechanism through which a taxpayer undergoing an audit presents to PRODECON characterized facts or omissions with which it disagrees and seeks a consensual solution. PRODECON acts as an impartial mediator; it does not replace the reviewing authority, the taxpayer’s adviser or a court.
In transfer pricing it can organize differences about functions, risks, services, comparables, segmentation, loans or adjustments before a final assessment. It does not automatically make a position correct, guarantee agreement or replace a technical file. The decision should assess eligibility, timing, scope, audit strategy, evidence, regularization, benefits, waivers, collateral effects and alternatives.
Research and verification cutoff: August 2, 2026. Confirm the current Federal Tax Code, guidelines, requirements, deadlines and criteria directly with PRODECON for the specific procedure. This content is not legal advice or representation.
Nature of the mechanism
It is a nonjudicial route based on assisted dialogue. The taxpayer identifies facts or omissions characterized during the audit and proposes terms. The authority may accept, suggest different terms or reject them under the procedure.
PRODECON facilitates communication and verifies that an agreement conforms to applicable provisions and taxpayer rights. It does not issue a judgment or impose the taxpayer’s interpretation on SAT.
When it may be relevant
Consider it when the audit contains an identifiable characterization and a difference that can be explained, proven, corrected or resolved by consensus. It can be valuable when several departments supplied fragmented answers or when economic analysis must be connected to accounting and material evidence.
Do not wait until the procedural window disappears. Record minutes, observations, provisional decision or other relevant document and the date each fact is communicated.
Eligibility
Review the type of audit power, stage, characterization document, included facts and legal restrictions. The request should focus on specific facts or omissions rather than generalized disagreement with the audit.
Prepare an eligibility memo with legal basis, act, date, scope and evidence. Where doubt exists, seek institutional guidance before assuming the route suspends or changes a deadline.
Delimiting the facts
Build a matrix: authority fact, taxpayer position, source document, amount, year, transaction, rule, evidence and proposed solution. Separate factual, legal, economic and arithmetic disagreements.
A statement such as “the margin is outside the range” can hide disputes over segmentation, tested party, comparables or exceptional items. Disaggregation supports a productive session.
Technical file
Include studies, contracts, trial balance, electronic invoices, deliverables, interviews, operational emails, payments, policies, comparables and calculation files. Reconcile everything to returns and prior responses.
Preserve versions. Explain changes and do not rewrite history. A transparent correction is more defensible than apparent consistency created after the event.
Case theory
Write a concise explanation of the transaction, position, alleged error, proof and requested outcome. Identify strong, weak and uncertain points. Do not claim more than the evidence supports.
Test the theory with tax, legal, accounting and operations. Resolve differences before filing.
Request an eligibility and file review to turn characterized facts into a matrix of evidence, positions, regularization options and working-session strategy.
Request and exhibits
The request must meet current requirements and identify facts or omissions precisely. Attach documents establishing representation, the act and position, plus necessary evidence. Use a navigable index.
Do not submit volume without purpose. Every exhibit should state which fact it proves and how it relates to the proposed solution.
Authority response
The authority may accept, propose different terms or explain why it rejects adoption. Analyze its response line by line and update the controversy matrix.
Do not treat a proposal as full acceptance. Quantify changes, conditions and effects before responding.
Working sessions
Prepare agenda, participants, objectives and documents. Appoint technical and legal speakers. Bring visual bridges of figures and transactions rather than promotional slides.
After each session, record agreed items, open issues, requests, owners and dates. Clarify immediately any minutes that do not reflect the discussion.
PRODECON’s role
PRODECON facilitates and mediates neutrally. It can focus the disagreement and promote orderly information exchange. Its participation does not guarantee that the authority accepts a proposal.
Keep communications through established channels. Procedural transparency prevents parallel contacts from generating competing versions.
Economic analysis at the table
Explain the delineated transaction, FAR, method, tested party, indicator, comparables, adjustments and range. Reproduce calculations from a controlled file. Show why an alternative changes the result.
If proposing an amount, document the rationale. Negotiation should not produce a figure detached from facts and method.
Service materiality
For intragroup services, connect request, provider, personnel, activity, delivery, recipient, benefit, allocation key, invoice, payment and record. A transfer pricing study alone does not prove actual provision.
Classify shareholder, duplicate or no-benefit activities. Do not defend the entire charge with an irrelevant sample.
Loans and financial transactions
Document purpose, capacity, contract, disbursement, payment, currency, term, guarantees, rating, rate and conduct. Separate existence of debt, deductibility and arm’s-length pricing.
An interest benchmark does not cure lack of capacity or inconsistency between terms and execution.
Segmentation and comparables
Reconcile segments to the trial balance and statements. Explain allocations, exceptional items and nonoperating costs. Preserve the search, filters and reasons for acceptance or rejection.
If the authority uses another set, compare companies and adjustments structurally. Identify differences that materially change the range.
Solution options
Model full acceptance, partial acceptance, recharacterization, data correction, adjustment, regularization or disagreement. Calculate tax, additions, benefits, returns and collateral effects for each.
Define authorization limits. The table team should not bind the taxpayer outside an approved range.
Regularization
An agreement may involve correction of the tax position. Before acceptance, simulate returns, payments, invoices, withholding, VAT, customs, losses and accounting. Confirm funding and calendar.
The willingness to correct does not replace legal analysis. Document why regularization resolves the agreed facts.
Benefits and costs
Compare certainty, time, costs, possible penalty benefits under applicable rules, cash flow and audit closure against continued controversy. Do not promise benefits without confirming requirements.
Include information, adviser, personnel, translation and regularization costs. An economically unfavorable agreement may not be the best route.
Interaction with later defense
Analyze what happens if no complete agreement is reached. Preserve relevant documents and deadlines and avoid unnecessary admissions. Legal counsel reviews proposals and material communications.
Do not treat the request as a substitute for preparing a defense. The file remains useful if controversy continues.
Governance and authority
Create a committee involving tax leadership, legal, CFO, accounting and operations. Define who files, negotiates, validates, approves and executes. Keep a decision log.
Escalate any change in amount, facts or scope. The speed of a session does not justify unauthorized commitments.
Practical timeline
Phase zero covers eligibility and deadline preservation. Phase one builds the matrix and file. Phase two files. Phase three handles the response and sessions. Phase four evaluates the draft. Phase five signs, regularizes and closes, or transitions to another route.
Each phase has a deliverable, owner and exit criterion. The internal timeline does not replace current legal deadlines.
Communication control
Centralize submissions, email, meetings, exhibits and versions. Use stable naming and a delivery register. Prevent departments from sending data without case-lead review.
One contradictory figure can shift the debate from technical merit to credibility and control.
Warning signs
Warnings include no characterized fact, unconfirmed deadline, changing narrative, unreconciled data, late-created evidence, proposal without calculation, parallel contact, missing authority or omitted collateral effects.
It is also dangerous to assume PRODECON decides the merits or that filing guarantees suspension, a benefit or agreement. Verify each effect.
Decision checklist
Confirm audit power, stage, act, facts, years, amounts, rules, eligibility, deadline, evidence, study, reconciliation, theory, options, regularization, benefits, remedies, owners, approvals and alternative plan.
Assign a traffic light and action to each item. The recommendation distinguishes known facts, inferences and open questions.
Illustrative example
During an audit, the authority challenges interest on a related-party loan for rate and substance. The company separates debt existence, payment capacity and price; reconciles disbursements; identifies the characterized fact; prepares comparables and models alternatives. At the session it shows what proves each element and assesses a partial solution with complete impact.
The example demonstrates preparation, not a guaranteed result.
Closure and implementation
If signed, execute returns, payments and entries in the agreed order. Preserve the agreement, exhibits, receipts, reconciliation and proof of compliance. Report closed and residual exposure to the board.
If not signed, document the points discussed, preserve applicable protections and trigger the alternative strategy promptly.
Readiness gate
Before filing, management approves a concise gate record: eligible acts, facts in scope, strongest evidence, material weaknesses, proposed range, payment capacity, procedural alternative and authorized team. The record is updated after the authority response and before any draft agreement.
This control prevents the mediation process from outrunning internal decisions. It also gives the board a clear account of what may be resolved and what remains exposed.
Pre-signature challenge
Compare the draft agreement with the facts matrix and approved economic scenario. Legal validates scope, finality and procedural effects; tax recalculates tax and additions; accounting confirms returns and entries; treasury confirms funding; operations verifies that any prospective policy can be followed. Record matters expressly included, excluded and unresolved.
Run an adversarial reading: Could a sentence be understood more broadly? Do the exhibits match the body? Are years, operations and figures defined? Are conditions executable? Any material revision returns to the committee. The desire to close should not create an ambiguous obligation.
Implementation certification
Create an implementation table listing every return, payment, invoice, journal, evidence item and deadline. The responsible function attaches the filing receipt and a reviewer confirms the amount. The case closes internally only when the table reconciles to the signed terms.
If the agreement requires future conduct, assign an operational control and escalation threshold. Do not rely on the audit team to monitor ordinary business indefinitely.
Lessons after closure
Translate the case into control actions: update contracts, retain deliverables, correct segmentation, formalize approvals or monitor margins. Assign owners and proof. An agreement resolves the facts covered; it does not automatically protect future years or other transactions.
Conclusion
A conclusive agreement can turn a technical audit into structured dialogue before final assessment. Its value depends on eligibility, clear facts, evidence, numbers and decision capacity.
The taxpayer should approach PRODECON with an explainable case and quantified options. Mediation facilitates the process; it does not replace the technical and legal work needed for a defensible solution.
Request Conclusive Agreement Support to assess eligibility, prepare the facts-and-evidence matrix, support working sessions and model implementation or alternative defense.
Verified official sources
- Mexican Chamber of Deputies, current Federal Tax Code, Articles 69-C et seq.
- PRODECON, Conclusive agreements: first alternative mechanism for resolving controversies in tax audits.
- PRODECON, advice and consultation services.
- Mexican Chamber of Deputies, current Income Tax Law.
Verification closed on August 2, 2026. Confirm eligibility, requirements and effects under the current rules and guidelines for the case.