On January 1, 2026, the Federal Revenue Law for fiscal year 2026 (FRL) (Ley de Ingresos de la Federación para el ejercicio fiscal 2026 “LIF 2026”). entered into force.
Article 25, sections IV and V, of the 2026 FRL, introduces relevant adjustments applicable to credit institutions and the financial system, specifically regarding the deduction of contributions paid to the Institute for the Protection of Bank Savings (IPAB) and the deduction of bad debts. (Protección del Ahorro Bancario (“IPAB”) y de créditos incobrables).
Specifically, section IV provides that three quarters of the contributions paid by multiple banking institutions to IPAB will not be deductible. In turn, section V establishes that, in substitution of the provisions set forth in Article 27, section XV, of the Income Tax Law (ITL) (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta “LISR”), credit institutions must deduct bad debts under the same rules applicable to other legal entities and not upon charge off in accordance with the provisions issued by the National Banking and Securities Commission (Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores “CNBV”).
The explanatory statement of the legislative initiative indicates that these adjustments were based on the following considerations:
I. Contributions to the Institute for the Protection of Bank Savings.
a. Contributions to IPAB are not a general obligation, since only multiple banking institutions are required to pay such contributions.
b. Only one quarter of the contribution paid by credit institutions is allocated to the current bank savings protection system, pursuant to the Tenth Transitory Article of the Law for the Protection of Bank Savings.
Based on this distinction, the legislators considered that the portion linked to the Bank Savings Protection Fund is not directly related to the generation of income by credit institutions. Therefore, the FRL introduces a limitation on the deduction of seventy five percent of the contributions paid to IPAB, allowing only the deduction of the remaining twenty five percent. This applies even though payment of such contribution is mandatory, permanent, and indivisible by law.
II. Deduction of bad debts.
a. To harmonize the tax treatment of bad debt deductions applicable to credit institutions with that applicable to other taxpayers.
b. To eliminate the special treatment and prevent leaving to the discretion of credit institutions the determination of the timing and requirements to deduct bad debts in their loan portfolios, as abuses have been identified in the use of such deduction by those institutions.
Until December 31, 2025, credit institutions were allowed to deduct losses derived from bad debts upon charging off their loan portfolios, in accordance with the provisions issued by the National Banking and Securities Commission. This special treatment was intended to ensure greater availability of operating capital for credit institutions, in order to expand their capacity to meet their obligations.
However, as of January 1, 2026, credit institutions must deduct bad debts under the same rules applicable to other legal entities, in accordance with Article 27, section XV, of the ITL, and not upon charge off pursuant to the provisions issued by the National Banking and Securities Commission.
This new treatment produces unequal and discriminatory effects, as it eliminates a differentiated treatment that was constitutionally valid and recognized by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which justified allowing the deduction of bad debts upon charge off to protect the financial system and the saving public.
Defense opportunity.
We believe that the provisions limiting the deduction of contributions to IPAB and eliminating the special treatment for the deduction of bad debts violate principles of tax justice. Therefore, they may be challenged through amparo proceedings, either on the grounds of their entry into force, in the case of the former, or on the grounds of their first act of application.
The attorneys in the firm’s tax practice remain at your disposal to advise you on defense strategies to challenge the aforementioned provisions.
Sincerely,
Gerardo Nieto
Gil Zenteno
Alejandro Barrera
Víctor Barajas
Ramón de la Torre
José Miguel Tuirán