Of the proposals contained in the initiative to reform the Federal Tax Code, presented by the Executive on September 8, and which is still in the process of being approved by the Legislature, there are some that have caught the attention of taxpayers due to the uncertainty they generate, and are among others those that we comment below:

Use of technology by the Authority

The proposal consists of incorporating, in the cases of visits to the taxpayer’s fiscal domicile, the use of technological tools by the tax authority, such as photographic and video cameras, tape recorders, cell phones or others, that allow the collection of information that serve as proof of the goods and assets that exist in the fiscal domicile (article 45 of the CFF)

Likewise, when personal notifications are made, it is intended to empower the notifier to use technological tools to collect images or material that serves as proof of said diligence (Article 137 of the CFF)

Although the information obtained is expected to be protected by tax secrecy in terms of article 69 of the CFF, there is concern among taxpayers that it may be misused.

Identity data verification service

It is proposed that the SAT can provide the taxpayer identity verification service by issuing a binary response (yes / no) to validate the biometric identity. This service would be provided when requested by those individuals who determine the use of the advanced electronic signature as a means of authentication or signing of digital documents (article 17-F)

As we know, in the process for the issuance of the electronic signature certificate, the SAT obtains the biometric information of the taxpayers (fingerprints, iris and face) that allow to have certainty of their identity, which can be used for the confirmation of said identity, at the request of the public or private entity that requests it.

The fact that third parties have access to the information of the e. Firm generates uncertainty, despite the fact that the Executive assured that it will not expose the personal data of the taxpayers at any time.

Refund of balances in favor

It is proposed to establish in article 22 of the CFF that the refund request will be considered not submitted, in those cases in which the taxpayer, or the address indicated by him, is not located before the Federal Taxpayers Registry, and also when the request is deemed not submitted, it will not be considered as a collection management that interrupts the prescription of the obligation to return. It should be noted that currently, this is one of the causes of rejection of tax refund requests, despite not being established yet in the Tax Code and therefore not complying with the law. It can then be said that the reform seeks to adjust this provision to the current practices of the authority.