Tax Law

Guide to Taxes on the Purchase and Sale of Properties in Mexico

April 13, 2026 — Enrique Benet-Gregg

The Fiscal Architecture of Mexican Real Estate Transactions

Every real property transfer in Mexico activates a layered set of fiscal obligations that span federal, state, and municipal jurisdictions simultaneously. A single residential sale in Cancún or Playa del Carmen can involve ISR on the seller’s capital gain, ISAI payable by the buyer, IVA if the property is commercial, and mandatory notarial withholding — each governed by distinct statutes, rates, bases, and deadlines. In the Riviera Maya and the Mexican Caribbean, where property values have appreciated sharply over the past decade and where a disproportionate share of buyers are foreign nationals, the cost of fiscal ignorance regularly exceeds the cost of sound legal advice. This guide addresses each layer in sequence, analyzes recognized optimization strategies, draws comparative lessons from two reference jurisdictions, and identifies the structural gaps in current legislation that continue to generate uncertainty and dispute.

ISAI: The Property Acquisition Tax

The Property Acquisition Tax (ISAI) is triggered by any legal act through which the ownership or beneficial possession of real property is transferred: purchase and sale, donation, adjudication, merger, and comparable acts. In Quintana Roo, ISAI operates as a municipal tax administered under the Tax Law of the Municipalities of the State of Quintana Roo, which grants each municipality authority to set rates and bases within state-established parameters.

In the municipalities of Benito Juárez (Cancún), Solidaridad (Playa del Carmen), and Tulum, the applicable rate has historically ranged between 2% and 3% of the taxable base, calculated on the higher of three values: the agreed contractual price, the fiscal appraisal value (valor fiscal), or the cadastral value (valor catastral). This “highest value” methodology is commercially significant in any market where cadastral registrations lag behind real transaction prices — a chronic condition throughout the Riviera Maya — and means that buyers cannot assume that underpricing in a contract will reduce their ISAI exposure. Municipal rates are subject to annual legislative review and should be confirmed against the current municipal tariff schedule prior to any transaction.

ISAI is borne by the acquirer. Payment is a prerequisite to registration at the Public Real Property Registry, and the notary must certify that the obligation has been discharged before notarizing the transfer deed. The notary does not assume personal liability for unpaid ISAI but bears professional and administrative responsibility for verifying compliance.

ISR on Capital Gains from Real Property

Resident Individuals: Chapter IV of Title IV LISR

For individuals with Mexican tax residence, gains from real property sales are governed by Chapter IV of Title IV of the Income Tax Law (LISR), Articles 119 through 128. The taxable gain is computed as the difference between the net sale price and the inflation-adjusted deductible cost basis. Article 121 LISR enumerates authorized deductions: the original documented acquisition cost, investments in structural improvements (mejoras), notarial and registration fees paid at acquisition, real estate brokerage commissions (honorarios de corretaje) charged to the seller, and appraisal expenses. Article 122 LISR requires that the cost basis be restated by multiplying by the INPC quotient (the National Consumer Price Index for the month of sale divided by the INPC for the month of acquisition), an adjustment that can substantially compress the taxable gain in long-held, high-appreciation assets.

The applicable marginal rate follows the progressive table of Article 152 LISR, reaching a maximum of 35%. Article 128 LISR offers an alternative: the seller may elect to apply a flat 35% directly to gross proceeds without deductions. This election is rarely advantageous in practice and exists primarily as an administrative simplification for sellers unable to document their cost basis. Under Article 124 LISR, when acquisition cost cannot be evidenced, the law prescribes a deemed cost based on a percentage of the sale price — a default that almost always results in a higher tax burden than actual documentation would produce.

The Primary Residence Exemption: Article 93, Fracción XIX LISR

Article 93, fracción XIX of the LISR provides the most commercially consequential exemption in residential real estate: capital gains from the sale of the taxpayer’s primary residence (casa habitación) are entirely exempt from ISR, provided: (i) the total agreed consideration does not exceed 700,000 Investment Units (UDIs); (ii) the transaction is formalized before a fedatario público; and (iii) the taxpayer has not invoked the same exemption within the preceding three fiscal years. The precise peso equivalent of 700,000 UDIs must be confirmed against the Banco de México’s daily publication at the time of transfer; at current 2026 values, this ceiling approximates MXN 6.1–6.3 million — a threshold that a substantial portion of Riviera Maya residential properties now exceed.

When the agreed price surpasses 700,000 UDIs, the exemption does not disappear entirely: the seller is taxable only on the gain attributable to the excess, applied proportionally. The First Chamber of the SCJN has consistently held, applying the mandate of Article 5 CFF, which requires strict construction of exemption provisions, that the scope of tax exemptions must be confined to the literal terms of the statutory text, precluding expansive interpretations of “casa habitación” that the SAT would otherwise contest in audits.

The exemption is personal and non-transferable. Its invocation requires the seller to provide the notary with a sworn statement confirming primary residence status; the notary must include this representation in the deed. When that sworn statement is subsequently found to be false, both civil and tax liability attach to the seller.

Legal Entities: Title II LISR

Mexican corporations (sociedades anónimas and analogous structures) are taxed on real property gains under Title II LISR at a flat 30% corporate rate on net income. No equivalent to the casa habitación exemption exists for legal entities. Gains are consolidated into the entity’s ordinary taxable income for the fiscal year. When after-tax profits are subsequently distributed as dividends to individual shareholders, Article 140 LISR imposes a supplementary 10% withholding at the distributing entity level. The combined effective rate is computed as follows: 30% corporate ISR on the pre-tax profit, plus 10% dividend withholding applied to the remaining after-tax amount (70% of pre-tax profit), yielding a combined rate of 30% + (10% × 70%) = 37% on the original pre-tax profit. This consideration weighs heavily against casual corporate ownership of appreciated residential assets. Importantly, however, distributions made from the entity’s Cuenta de Utilidad Fiscal Neta (CUFIN) are exempt from the additional corporate-level ISR surcharge established under Article 10 LISR, which applies when distributions exceed after-tax earnings properly accumulated in CUFIN. Where the distributing entity maintains a sufficient CUFIN balance, the effective combined rate can fall below 37%, making CUFIN management an operationally significant variable in any structuring analysis involving corporate real estate holdings.

In the restricted coastal zone (zona restringida: 50 km from any coastline, 100 km from any international border), foreign individuals may not directly hold real property under Articles 10 and 11 of the Ley de Inversión Extranjera. They must instead use either a fideicomiso through an authorized Mexican banking institution or a duly incorporated Mexican legal entity. For tax purposes, a residential fideicomiso is transparent: the beneficiary is the taxpayer for ISR and retains access to individual progressive rates and the casa habitación exemption where applicable. The corporate route, by contrast, subjects all gains to the 30% flat rate with no primary residence relief, making it the less efficient structure for pure residential holdings.

Non-Residents: Title V LISR

Foreign individuals and entities without a permanent establishment in Mexico are subject to tax under Title V of the LISR. Article 161 LISR, which specifically governs the alienation (enajenación) of real property by non-residents, provides two computational options for the non-resident seller:

Option A: Under the first paragraph of Article 161 LISR, a flat 25% on the gross sales proceeds, without deductions, withheld directly by the notary at closing and remitted to the SAT within the applicable statutory period.
Option B: Under the second paragraph of Article 161 LISR, a flat 35% on the net gain (sale price minus documented cost basis and authorized deductions), available only when the non-resident designates a duly authorized Mexican tax representative and provides the notary with complete acquisition documentation prior to closing.

Option B is frequently superior in economic terms when the seller acquired at a substantial and well-documented cost basis. The operational challenge is documentation: original purchase deeds, improvement contracts bearing the seller’s RFC, INPC adjustment worksheets, and proof of notarial fees are all required. For many foreign sellers who acquired through undocumented construction arrangements, nominee vehicles, or pre-formalization pre-sales, assembling this record retroactively is difficult. The SAT has intensified review of high-value non-resident dispositions in the Riviera Maya. Applicable bilateral tax treaties — notably the Mexico-United States Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation (in force since 1993, with protocols of 2002 and 2010) and the Mexico-Canada Convention — do not generally reduce Mexican withholding rates on real property below domestic statutory levels but provide the basis for a foreign tax credit in the seller’s country of residence, eliminating economic double taxation when timely claimed.

IVA on Real Property Transfers

La aplicación del Impuesto al Valor Agregado a las operaciones de transmisión de inmuebles se encuentra regulada por los artículos 1 y 9 de la Ley del Impuesto al Valor Agregado (LIVA). El artículo 9 LIVA establece dos exenciones categóricas de directa relevancia:

Fracción I: La enajenación de terreno (suelo) se encuentra totalmente exenta de IVA.
Fracción II: La enajenación de construcciones adheridas al terreno, cuando se destinen a o se utilicen como habitación (casa habitación), está exenta.

En consecuencia, la tasa general del 16% conforme al artículo 1 LIVA se aplica a las transmisiones de inmuebles comerciales, industriales o de uso mixto. En estas operaciones, el vendedor — si es contribuyente del IVA — debe expedir un CFDI (Comprobante Fiscal Digital por Internet) trasladando el impuesto al comprador, quien podrá acreditarlo contra sus propias obligaciones de IVA si es contribuyente del impuesto y la adquisición se destina a actividades económicas gravadas. Para compradores institucionales de inmuebles, el IVA en una adquisición comercial es típicamente neutral en términos de crédito; para compradores de uso final sin registro de IVA, constituye un sobreprecio no recuperable del 16% sobre el componente constructivo del precio de compra.

Las propiedades de uso mixto presentan la mayor complejidad de IVA en el contexto de la Riviera Maya. Las unidades de condominio que han sido operadas como rentas vacacionales a través de plataformas como Airbnb o Vrbo ocupan una zona gris controvertida: el SAT ha tratado cada vez más tales unidades como activos comerciales en lugar de casa habitación, generando IVA en la venta y descalificando la exención de la frac. II del artículo 9. Esta posición administrativa, que no ha sido codificada en legislación vinculante, crea incertidumbre estructural para los desarrolladores que comercializan inventario tanto para uso personal como para rendimiento de renta.

El Notario como Agente Fiscal Obligado: Artículo 126 LISR

Conforme al artículo 126 LISR, el notario público (fedatario público) es constituido por estatuto como agente obligado de retención con responsabilidad fiscal directa. Las obligaciones del notario son inelegables y secuenciales:

Calcular el pago provisional de ISR atribuible a la ganancia del vendedor, utilizando la documentación del vendedor y la metodología establecida conforme a los artículos 121–125 LISR;
Retener la cantidad aplicable de las cantidades pagaderas al vendedor en el momento de la protocolización;
Enterrar la cantidad retenida al SAT a más tardar el día 17 del mes calendario siguiente al mes de la protocolización; y
Entregar al vendedor una constancia de retención (constancia de retención) que documente la cantidad retenida, para ser utilizada en la declaración anual de impuesto sobre la renta del vendedor.

La retención provisional conforme al artículo 126 LISR no extingue la obligación del vendedor de presentar una declaración anual conforme al artículo 127 LISR. La declaración anual puede generar una devolución — cuando la retención provisional excedió el impuesto adeudado a tasas progresivas anuales aplicadas al ingreso agregado del vendedor — o un pago adicional. Para vendedores cuyo único evento significativo de ingreso anual es la venta de inmueble, la responsabilidad provisional y final son frecuentemente idénticas o muy cercanas; para vendedores con ingresos sustanciales adicionales, el cálculo agregado de fin de año puede producir un resultado materialmente diferente.

La SCJN ha sostenido consistentemente la constitucionalidad del régimen de retención notarial, sosteniendo que satisface el principio de legalidad porque la obligación de retener, la metodología de cálculo y la fecha límite de presentación están todas expresamente establecidas por estatuto formal en lugar de ser delegadas a regulación administrativa.

Como cuestión práctica, todas las partes en una transacción de bienes raíces deben contar con un RFC (Registro Federal de Contribuyentes) y CURP válidos previo a la protocolización. Los compradores extranjeros que poseen propiedad a través de un fideicomiso deben asegurar que tanto el beneficiario del fideicomiso como, donde sea aplicable, la institución fiduciaria estén debidamente registrados. La falta de proporcionar estos identificadores retrasa la protocolización y puede prevenir el registro de la transmisión.

Estrategias de Optimización Fiscal

Documentación de la Base de Costo y Ajuste por Inflación

La optimización de mayor impacto disponible a los vendedores conforme a la LISR es la documentación meticulosa del costo de adquisición y mejoras desde la fecha de compra. Conforme a los artículos 121–125 LISR, la base deducible incluye el precio original en la escritura pública, las mejoras estructurales documentadas que agreguen valor a la propiedad (a diferencia del mantenimiento ordinario), los honorarios notariales pagados en la adquisición y las comisiones de intermediación cobradas al vendedor en la disposición. Para propiedades tenidas por múltiples años, el ajuste por inflación conforme al artículo 122 LISR — aplicando el cociente INPC de adquisición a venta — puede reducir sustancialmente la ganancia nominal sujeta a impuesto. Los vendedores que no puedan producir documentación original de adquisición quedan sujetos a un costo presunto conforme al artículo 124 LISR, el cual es casi invariablemente menos favorable.

Planificación de la Exención de Casa Habitación

Where the property qualifies as a primary residence, the 700,000 UDI exemption should be evaluated against the projected gain at the time of sale. When the expected price approaches the UDI ceiling, sellers may examine whether improvements, closing costs, and the INPC adjustment sufficiently reduce the taxable gain to bring the net figure within the exempt range. The three-year limitation on repeated invocations of the exemption should also be tracked proactively, particularly by sellers who hold multiple residential properties.

Installment Sales

Article 123 LISR provides that when sale proceeds are received in installments across multiple fiscal years, the gain is recognized proportionally as each payment is received. For sellers subject to progressive individual rates, distributing receipts across two or more fiscal years can reduce the effective marginal rate applied to the gain, provided that the income recognized in each year falls within a lower bracket than would apply if the entire gain were recognized in a single fiscal year. This strategy requires that the installment structure be genuine and documented in the purchase agreement; artificial installment terms designed solely for tax deferral without commercial substance are vulnerable to SAT challenge. Parties should also be aware that the notary’s provisional withholding obligation under Article 126 LISR applies proportionally to each installment payment at the time it is received: a separate withholding calculation is required for each payment event, and the notary must remit the corresponding amount within the applicable statutory period following each installment. The seller retains the right to annual equalization under Article 127 LISR, which remains available at year-end to reconcile the aggregate provisional withholdings against the seller’s actual annual tax liability.

Non-Resident Election Modeling

For foreign sellers, the choice between Option A (25% on gross proceeds under the first paragraph of Article 161 LISR) and Option B (35% on net gain under the second paragraph of Article 161 LISR) should be modeled on the specific economics of each transaction before execution of the purchase-sale agreement. When the seller’s documented cost basis and authorized deductions produce a net gain that, taxed at 35%, results in less tax than 25% of the gross price, Option B is preferable. Preparation of the documentation package — before signing the purchase agreement — avoids the time pressure and deficiencies that arise when the issue is first addressed at closing.

Treaty Benefits and Foreign Tax Credit Planning

U.S., Canadian, Spanish, German, and other treaty-country residents should coordinate with their domestic tax advisors to ensure that Mexican ISR paid on real property gains is properly credited against their home-country tax liability. The Mexico-United States treaty, for example, allocates taxing rights on real property gains to the situs country (Mexico), while ensuring that U.S. residents receive a foreign tax credit for Mexican ISR paid, preventing double taxation at the federal level. These claims must be timely made and supported with the appropriate withholding certificates from the Mexican notary.

Comparative Perspective

United States

Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, long-term capital gains from real property held for more than twelve months are taxed at preferential federal rates of 0%, 15%, or 20%, depending on the taxpayer’s income bracket — structurally more competitive than Mexico’s maximum 35% marginal rate. The primary residence exclusion under IRC Section 121 allows individuals to exclude up to USD 250,000 (USD 500,000 for married couples filing jointly) of gain from gross income, with no upper price ceiling. By contrast, Mexico’s Article 93 XIX LISR exemption is capped at 700,000 UDIs regardless of property value. The Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA, 26 U.S.C. § 1445) imposes a mandatory 15% withholding on the gross price when a non-U.S. person sells U.S. real property, a structural analogue to Mexico’s Article 161 LISR regime for non-residents, though the U.S. system offers a lower default rate and a more developed administrative procedure for applying for withholding certificates to reduce the withholding when the actual gain is small. State-level taxes add a further burden: California imposes capital gains rates up to 13.3%, producing combined effective rates that rival or exceed Mexico’s in many high-value transactions.

Colombia

Colombia taxes capital gains (ganancias ocasionales) from real property sales under Articles 300–306 of the Tax Code at a flat rate of 10% for individuals — a significantly more competitive rate than Mexico’s progressive ISR. The taxable base is the difference between the sale price and the inflation-adjusted acquisition cost. Colombia also imposes the Registration Tax at rates of 0.5% to 1% of the transaction value, payable to the relevant departamento — a transfer tax structurally analogous to Mexico’s ISAI, though at materially lower rates. The Colombian model has been frequently cited by domestic reform advocates in Mexico as a reference for the potential introduction of a preferential flat rate on real estate capital gains, an approach that proponents argue would encourage formalization of transactions while reducing the fiscal incentive for underreporting sale prices.

The Mexican and Colombian frameworks share a common civil law foundation in the characterization of taxable events, the role of public notaries as fiscal intermediaries, and the distinction between ordinary income and capital gains. The divergence in rates reflects deliberate policy choices regarding the relative treatment of capital and labor income — a debate that remains actively engaged in both legal scholarship and legislative deliberation in Mexico.

Critical Legislative Gaps and Emerging Issues

UDI Threshold Erosion

The 700,000 UDI ceiling in Article 93 XIX LISR was established in the early 2000s and has not been adjusted by Congress despite two decades of real estate appreciation, particularly in coastal and resort markets. In the Riviera Maya, a substantial proportion of residential transactions now exceed this threshold, converting what was designed as a broad primary-residence relief into a benefit applicable only to lower-value properties. Emilio Margáin Manautou, in his foundational work on Mexican fiscal law, identified the failure to regularly update statutory exemption thresholds as a structural deficiency of the Mexican tax system that produces regressive distributional outcomes over time — a critique that applies with full force to Article 93 XIX in 2026.

Fideicomiso Beneficiary Substitutions

The legal characterization of a change in the beneficiary of a coastal fideicomiso as an “enajenación” under Article 14 of the Federal Tax Code (CFF) remains unresolved by binding statutory text. The SAT has consistently maintained that beneficiary substitutions trigger ISR and ISAI on the basis that Article 14 CFF’s definition of enajenación encompasses any transfer of ownership, beneficial interest, or economic rights in real property. Taxpayers and academic commentators — including Adolfo Arrioja Vizcaíno in his analysis of fiscal interpretation of property rights — have argued that a change in fideicomiso beneficiary, without a formal conveyance of title, does not meet the statutory threshold. Circuit Court criteria on this question are not uniform, and practitioners who rely on beneficiary substitutions as an alternative to formal conveyance do so at material fiscal risk.

Short-Term Rental Platforms and Use Reclassification

The proliferation of short-term rental platforms in the Quintana Roo coastal market has generated a new category of fiscal dispute: whether a condominium unit with a documented rental history retains its character as principal residence for purposes of both the Article 9 frac. II LIVA exemption and the Article 93 XIX LISR exemption at the time of sale. The SAT’s internal audit criteria have trended toward treating such units as commercial assets, with corresponding IVA exposure and loss of the ISR primary-residence exemption. No binding legislative provision currently addresses this characterization, leaving parties dependent on administrative criteria that can be revised without statutory process.

Anti-Money Laundering Compliance as a Transactional Prerequisite

The Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Operations with Resources of Illicit Origin (LFPIORPI) classifies real estate transfers above established value thresholds as vulnerable activities requiring notaries and real estate brokers to collect beneficial ownership information and, in prescribed circumstances, report to the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF). Under Article 17, fracción VIII of the LFPIORPI and its Regulations, the reporting threshold for real estate transactions is set at 8,025 times the daily minimum wage, which at current 2026 rates approximates MXN 2.3 million. This threshold is expressed in terms of the applicable daily minimum wage and is indexed accordingly; practitioners should confirm the operative figure against the current annual table published by the UIF, as the peso-equivalent amount adjusts with each annual minimum wage revision. Transactions at or above this threshold trigger mandatory beneficial ownership reporting obligations for the notary and, where applicable, for real estate brokers acting as obligated subjects under the statute. SAT enforcement actions in high-value transactions have become increasingly coordinated with UIF referrals, creating a compliance environment in which deficiencies in LFPIORPI procedures can attract both administrative penalties and heightened tax scrutiny on the underlying transaction.

As Hugo Carrasco Iriarte has documented in his systematic analysis of Mexican fiscal procedure, the convergence of tax administration and anti-money laundering enforcement in real property transactions represents one of the most significant structural shifts in Mexican fiscal practice of the past decade — and one that demands integrated legal advice from counsel experienced in both domains.

Conclusion

The fiscal framework governing real estate transactions in Mexico demands coordinated analysis across federal income tax, state and municipal transfer tax, value-added tax, notarial withholding obligations, and anti-money laundering compliance — each with distinct parties, rates, bases, and deadlines. The legislative gaps documented in this guide, particularly around the erosion of the UDI threshold, the contested treatment of fideicomiso beneficiary changes, and the administrative reclassification of rental units, are not theoretical concerns: they are active sources of audit exposure and, in some cases, litigation in the Riviera Maya market. As Sergio Francisco de la Garza observed in his analysis of Mexico’s constitutional tax framework, the principles of proportionality and equity in fiscal obligation require that burdens be calibrated to economic capacity — a standard that the current structure of real estate taxation does not uniformly meet. That structural deficiency is not merely an academic observation: it is a live feature of the operative legal landscape, one that generates cognizable arguments in audit proceedings, administrative recourse, and constitutional challenge before Mexican tribunals.

IBG Legal has represented non-resident sellers in SAT audit proceedings involving withholding disputes under Article 161 LISR and has advised on fideicomiso restructurings for foreign beneficiaries across the Quintana Roo coastal corridor. The firm provides bilingual (Spanish and English) legal services, reflecting the foreign-buyer orientation of the markets it serves. For non-resident investors, developers, and institutional buyers requiring specialized advice on transaction structuring, SAT audit defense, or the fiscal characterization of coastal fideicomiso arrangements, IBG Legal offers the combination of technical depth and jurisdictional focus that these matters require.

Sources and References

Federal Legislation

Law on Income Tax (LISR) — Articles 93 frac. XIX, 119–128, 140, 152, 161, Title IV Chapter IV, Title V; Official Journal of the Federation (DOF), last amended 2024. Note: Article 161 LISR governs the alienation of real property by non-residents and is the operative provision for the two withholding options (25% gross under paragraph 1; 35% net under paragraph 2). Article 160 LISR governs interest income and is distinct.
Law on Value-Added Tax (LIVA) — Articles 1, 9 frac. I and II; DOF, last amended 2022.
Tax Code of the Federation (CFF) — Article 14 (definition of enajenación); Article 5 (strict construction of provisions establishing tax burdens and exceptions, including exemptions); DOF, last amended 2024.
Regulations of the Law on Income Tax (RLISR) — provisions applicable to capital gains computation and notarial withholding.
Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Operations with Resources of Illicit Origin (LFPIORPI) — Article 17, fracción VIII (real estate transfers as vulnerable activity); reporting threshold of 8,025 times the daily minimum wage (approx. MXN 2.3 million at 2026 rates, subject to annual indexation); DOF 2012, amended 2021; Regulations of the LFPIORPI.
Foreign Investment Law (LIE) — Articles 10 and 11 (restricted zone); DOF 1993, last amended 2023.

State and Municipal Legislation

Finance Law of the Municipalities of the State of Quintana Roo — provisions governing ISAI base, rates, and collection.
Fiscal Code of the State of Quintana Roo — general fiscal procedural framework.

International Tax Treaties

Agreement between Mexico and the United States of America to Avoid Double Taxation and Prevent Tax Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income; DOF 1993; Protocols 2002 and 2010.
Agreement between Mexico and Canada to Avoid Double Taxation and Prevent Tax Evasion; DOF 1992.
Agreement between Mexico and the Kingdom of Spain to Avoid Double Taxation; DOF 1994.

Judicial Criteria

Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), First Chamber — consistent criteria on strict interpretation of tax exemptions pursuant to Article 5 CFF; applicable to analysis of Article 93 frac. XIX LISR.
SCJN — constitutional jurisprudence on the legality principle as applied to notarial withholding obligations under Article 126 LISR; proportionality in provisional payment regimes.
Collegiate Courts of Circuit — divergent criteria on the characterization of fideicomiso beneficiary substitutions as enajenación under Article 14 CFF; non-uniform resolution as of 2026.

Doctrine

Arrioja Vizcaíno, Adolfo. Tax Law. 22nd ed. Mexico: Themis, 2017.
Margáin Manautou, Emilio. Introduction to the Study of Mexican Tax Law. 23rd ed. Mexico: Porrúa, 2014.
Carrasco Iriarte, Hugo. Tax Law I and II. Mexico: IURE Editores, 2018.
De la Garza, Sergio Francisco. Mexican Financial Law. 28th ed. Mexico: Porrúa, 2008.

Administrative and Official Sources

Tax Administration Service (SAT) — Miscellaneous Tax Resolution 2026; criteria on non-resident withholding under Article 161 LISR and casa habitación classification.
INEGI — National Consumer Price Index (INPC), historical series; used for Article 122 LISR adjustment calculations.
Bank of Mexico — Daily Values of the Investment Unit (UDI), 2026 series.
Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) — annual table of LFPIORPI reporting thresholds; current threshold for real estate transactions: 8,025 times the daily minimum wage (Article 17 frac. VIII LFPIORPI), to be confirmed against the UIF’s current published schedule.
Public Property Registry of the State of Quintana Roo — registration requirements and ISAI verification procedures.

Comparative Sources

United States Internal Revenue Code (IRC) — Sections 121 (primary residence exclusion), 1221, 1231 (capital asset treatment); Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA), 26 U.S.C. § 1445.
Colombia, Tax Statute — Articles 300–306 (occasional gains); Registration Tax, applicable departmental regulations.