Tax risk for suppliers extends to those who receive their invoices

Article 49 Bis of the CFF: Obligations and risks for CFDI recipients

By Erika Baez, partner, and Federico Fernandez, associate, in the Tax team at the firm’s Mexico office

As of 2026, a new requirement for Digital Tax Receipts via the Internet (“CFDI”) came into force. Under this requirement, CFDI must evidence “existing, genuine transactions or actual legal acts”; otherwise, they are considered “false” for tax purposes under Article 29-A, section IX, of the Federal Tax Code (“CFF”).

In addition, the addition of Article 49 Bis of the CFFestablishes a new tax audit procedure to verify whether taxpayers issue CFDI presumed to be false. Under this procedure, if the taxpayer fails to rebut the presumption of falsity during the audit, the authority will issue a resolution and publish the taxpayer’s name and RFC on the website of the Tax Administration Service (“SAT”) and in the Official Gazette of the Federation (“DOF”).

Under this new regulation, during the third quarter of 2026, the SAT began publishing in the DOF the names and RFCs of taxpayers against whom resolutions had been issued for issuing CFDI deemed “false” under this procedure. These publications make it particularly important to consider not only the consequences for the listed taxpayers, but also the effects on third parties that received those CFDI and claimed tax effects for them.

For companies that receive a significant number of CFDI because of the nature and volume of their transactions, the challenge is not limited to preventing transactions with suppliers that may fall within the scope of Article 49 Bis. It also involves having mechanisms in place to identify and address in a timely manner the consequences of a supplier being listed under this procedure.

Procedure under Article 49 Bis of the CFF

As noted, Article 49 Bis of the CFF governs a new tax audit procedure that applies when the tax authority presumes that CFDI issued by a taxpayer do not meet the requirement set out in Article 29-A, section IX, of the CFF: that they evidence “existing, genuine transactions or actual legal acts”.

The audit order must state the reasons for the authority’s presumption that the receipts are false. From the outset of the procedure, the authority temporarily suspends the issuing taxpayer’s ability to issue CFDI. During the procedure, the taxpayer may submit any evidence it considers relevant to rebut the presumption.

As a general rule, the procedure must be completed within a maximum of 24 business days from delivery of the order or the date on which its notification takes effect. If the authority determines that the presumption has not been rebutted, it issues the corresponding resolution, and the CFDI issued by the taxpayer under review are deemed false for all purposes and therefore have no tax effect.

The name and RFC of the issuing taxpayer against whom a resolution has determined that its CFDI are “false” are published on the website of the SAT and in the DOF. This publication has specific consequences for recipients who claimed tax effects for CFDI issued by that taxpayer.

Effects of publication for recipients

Section X of Article 49 Bis of the CFF provides that publication, under this procedure, of the name and RFC of a taxpayer that issued “false” CFDI is intended to inform those who received its CFDI of the resolution and require them to reverse any tax effects claimed for those receipts.

To reverse those tax effects, recipients of the CFDI must file the corresponding amended tax returns within 30 calendar days after publication of the issuing taxpayer’s name and RFC in the DOF.

If recipients of those CFDI do not correct their tax situation within that period, the authority will temporarily restrict the use of their Digital Seal Certificate, under Article 17-H Bis, section XIV, of the CFF.

A key difference from Article 69-B

The procedures under Articles 69-B and 49 Bis of the CFF coexist, but apply in different circumstances and have specific consequences for those who have claimed tax effects for the relevant receipts.

Under Article 69-B of the CFF, those who have claimed tax effects for receipts issued by a taxpayer included on the final list may prove that the transactions actually took place or, where applicable, correct their tax situation.

By contrast, when a taxpayer’s name and RFC are published under Article 49 Bis, that provision does not provide an equivalent procedure for recipients of its CFDI to prove that the transactions took place; section X requires them to reverse the tax effects by filing the corresponding amended tax returns.

This difference is relevant when determining the steps a company should take in response to a publication under Article 49 Bis of the CFF.

Practical implications for companies

Companies that have claimed tax effects for CFDI issued by a taxpayer listed under Article 49 Bis of the CFF, whose CFDI have been determined to be “false”, will need to identify the receipts involved, the periods in which they were used and the tax effects recognized.

This analysis may require information from several departments, including tax, accounts payable, procurement, legal, compliance and IT. The ability to bring this information together promptly is particularly important given that Article 49 Bis sets a 30-calendar-day deadline for reversing the relevant tax effects.

At companies with a large number of suppliers, decentralised procurement processes or different systems for managing CFDI and supporting documentation, identifying and analysing the relevant information may require careful internal coordination.

Measures for a timely response

• Monitor. Assign responsibility for reviewing publications under Article 49 Bis and comparing them against the company’s supplier register.
• Identify. Ensure traceability so that CFDI received from a listed supplier can be located promptly, along with the periods, tax returns and items for which they had tax effects.
• Assess. Verify that documentation relating to the transactions is properly organised and readily accessible, so that the specific circumstances and appropriate steps can be assessed.
• Act. Determine in advance which departments should be involved following a publication, who will coordinate the analysis and how decisions will be made within the statutory deadline.

Suggested steps: Publication in the DOF → Identification of the listed supplier → Location of the CFDI and periods involved → Assessment of tax effects → Filing of amended tax returns within 30 calendar days

Conclusion

Publications under section X of Article 49 Bis of the CFF, following resolutions that determine that CFDI issued by listed taxpayers are false, confirm the practical importance of this procedure not only for taxpayers directly subject to it, but also for those who have claimed tax effects for those receipts.

In this context, companies should assess whether they have appropriate mechanisms to monitor publications, promptly cross-check them against their supplier registers, identify the CFDI involved and coordinate internally to assess and address their effects within the statutory deadline. Coordination across the organisation may be as important as the analysis of each case.

Rather than being a new review mechanism limited to tax matters, Article 49 Bis creates a broader compliance management challenge in supplier relationships. For companies that receive a significant volume of CFDI, having these mechanisms in place before a publication occurs may be decisive in addressing the consequences set out in this provision in a timely manner.