When a taxpayer fails to pay their tax debts within the voluntary period, the tax authorities have several options to seize assets and ensure forced collection. One of the most common tools in recent years is the seizure of credits.
Credit seizure procedures not only have an economic impact on the debtor but also commercial and reputational repercussions for those who receive these notices and are obligated to address them. If they do not comply, they risk being declared jointly liable, according to Article 42.2.b) of the General Tax Law, meaning the tax authorities could demand payment of the debt from them, along with the original debtor.
It is important to understand that these seizures include not only billed and outstanding credits but also those pending billing, those that do not require billing, and those derived from existing contracts. Upon receiving a notice, it is crucial not to make payments to the debtor. Instead, on the due date of the credit, the amounts should be deposited directly with the tax authorities until the specified amount is covered.
In some cases, the involved parties (the taxpayer debtor and the recipient of the notice) may be mutual debtors and creditors. However, this fact cannot be opposed to the tax authorities unless the debt has been extinguished by compensation before receiving the notice.
Sometimes, the debtor may communicate that their debt with the tax authorities has been settled and request to ignore the notice. In these situations, the most prudent course of action is to ask the debtor to officially manage the lifting of the seizure. Only with this formal communication can the risk of violating the notice be eliminated.
Another common situation arises when the owner of a company with debts to the tax authorities creates a new company from which they begin billing. In these cases, it is advisable to carefully analyze whether making payments to this new entity could lead to joint liability, as contemplated in Article 42.2.a) of the General Tax Law.
If a notice of responsibility transfer is received, the process of appeals can be initiated, although only concerning the reasons for the transfer and not the tax settlements of the debtor. It is advisable to accompany the appeal with a request for suspension of payment, as if the tax authorities collect the debt by other means, the jointly liable party could be exempt from payment.
Finally, for companies that frequently receive such notices, it is a good practice to establish internal protocols that help minimize the risk of non-compliance with seizure orders. Additionally, this could serve as evidence to the tax authorities that they have acted diligently, thereby avoiding the transfer of responsibility.
For further information on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact MDG Advisors.
Sandra Gámez Chaves
