On this occasion, I will address the issue of the precautionary seizure of taxpayers' bank accounts by the tax authority, explaining in which cases it is applied and providing recommendations to protect your assets in case you face this situation.
Although not a frequently discussed measure, the freezing of bank accounts by the tax authorities is more common than it seems and can have a significant impact on taxpayers by preventing them from having access to the funds deposited in their accounts.
The Political Constitution of the United Mexican States establishes the obligation to contribute to public spending in a proportional and equitable manner. However, in practice, this is not always complied with, which is why the tax authority may resort to measures such as precautionary seizure to ensure compliance with this obligation.
It is important to differentiate this measure from the freezing of bank accounts derived from a previously determined tax credit. In the case of precautionary seizure, the immobilization is a measure of constraint imposed against those individuals who, in any way, hinder the exercise of the powers of the tax authority. In these cases, it is not necessary that a previously determined tax credit exists.
Indeed, the precautionary seizure of bank accounts occurs when the tax authorities cannot initiate or develop their verification powers because the taxpayer cannot be located at his tax domicile, has abandoned it without prior notice, his whereabouts are unknown or, once such powers have been initiated, there is an imminent risk that he will conceal, dispose of or dilapidate his assets.
Although the law contemplates that various assets of the taxpayer may be subject to precautionary seizure, bank deposits are the first asset on which this measure is usually applied.
However, the tax authority does not have absolute freedom to carry out the precautionary seizure. In order to proceed, it must be proven that the taxpayer is not located, impedes the authority's powers of review or that there is an imminent risk that the taxpayer will dilapidate his assets, following the procedure established by law:
It is essential for the taxpayer to bear in mind that the amount insured may not exceed the provisional determination made by the tax authority. Otherwise, the purpose of the measure, which is to guarantee the interest of the Federal Treasury, would be exceeded.
In practice, the authority first freezes the bank accounts and then notifies the taxpayer of the reason for the seizure. This means that the affected party may find out about the measure after his account has been blocked, which may represent a problem if he needs to access his resources immediately.
However, there are different defense mechanisms that taxpayers may exercise in the event of a precautionary seizure of their bank accounts. Among them are the appeal for revocation, the nullity trial and the indirect amparo. The most appropriate strategy will depend on the circumstances of each case, although the amparo is usually a recommendable option due to its speed and the possibility of obtaining a precautionary measure that suspends the effects of the seizure.
To avoid the application of this type of restrictive measures, it is recommended to comply punctually with tax obligations, file returns and payments in due time and form, deliver the documentation required by the authority and cooperate with the auditing procedures. Of course, all this must be done with due legal advice.
In summary, it is essential to cooperate with the tax authority and provide the information requested. However, it is also important to have the support of a specialist who analyzes the legality of the authority's actions and guarantees the protection of the taxpayer's rights. This not only helps to prevent possible abuses, but also allows timely legal action to be taken in case of irregularities, thus reducing the negative consequences of the measure.
In conclusion, the immobilization of bank accounts is a highly relevant problem, since it can seriously affect the operability of individuals and companies, causing financial paralysis, reputational damage, loss of confidence of customers and suppliers, and even the impossibility of fulfilling acquired commitments.
