On December 4, 2024, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation resolved Contradiction of Criteria 191/2024, establishing binding precedent that redefines the procedural landscape for tax refunds. The full text of the judgment is now available, allowing a complete analysis of the reasoning that led the Court to determine categorically that when the tax authority denies a request for a refund of a balance in favor on formal grounds and the taxpayer does not challenge that resolution, the taxpayer is barred from filing a new request for the same period and tax.
The disagreement arose between opposing criteria upheld by jurisdictional bodies in different regions. The Fourth Collegiate Court in Administrative Matters of the Third Circuit (Central-South Region) held that, where there is a negative determination on formal grounds, the right to file a second request is definitively foreclosed because it constitutes a final resolution that can only be challenged through an appeal. Conversely, the Regional Plenary in Administrative Matters of the Central-North Region determined that when the dismissive resolution does not contain a substantive ruling on the facts or the law, it does not foreclose the taxpayer’s right to file a new request by correcting the formal requirements or defects of the first request or submitting new elements.
By a majority of three votes to one, the Second Chamber established the following jurisprudential thesis:
“REQUEST FOR REFUND OF BALANCE IN FAVOR. IF THE TAXPAYER DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE RESOLUTION DENYING IT ON FORMAL GROUNDS, THE TAXPAYER MAY NOT FILE IT AGAIN.
Facts: The opposing bodies upheld contradictory criteria when analyzing the possibility that a taxpayer who did not challenge the tax authority’s resolution denying a refund of a balance in favor on formal grounds may file a new request correcting the omitted elements and submitting new ones.
Legal criterion: The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation determines that it is not viable to file a new request for a refund of a balance in favor when the tax authority denied the first request in whole or in part on formal grounds and that determination was not challenged.
Justification: Article 22 of the Federal Tax Code establishes the procedure for the authority to rule on requests for refunds of balances in favor once the necessary information and documents have been requested. If the authority denies the request on formal grounds, the taxpayer may challenge that decision. If the taxpayer does not do so, the taxpayer cannot request the refund again by correcting deficiencies in information and documents or adding new ones. Although the authority has a duty to refund amounts improperly paid, which in turn entails the right to request a refund through the corresponding mechanisms, if the authority does not authorize it because of formal defects, the taxpayer must exhaust the administrative remedies or pursue administrative litigation. Failure to exhaust them does not create a new opportunity to request the refund, because the authority has already issued a determination that can only be modified through a judicial or administrative resolution. Holding otherwise would violate the principle of legal certainty, since it would allow the taxpayer to correct or even improve the initial request without having fully exhausted the procedure to obtain the refund of the balance in favor.”
This case law has already been published in the Judicial Weekly of the Federation and is therefore binding.
Justice Javier Laynez Potisek issued a dissenting opinion, considering that when the denial of a refund derives exclusively from formal aspects (lack of information or documentation), the taxpayer may file a new request for the authority to rule on the matter, distinguishing between resolutions that address the merits and those that merely note procedural deficiencies.
The partners of Matus Ruiz & Romero Apis are available to discuss the scope of this note, review specific cases, and defend taxpayers’ rights through the appropriate defense mechanisms.