A good settlement is better than a bad argument. That seems to have finally happened in the dispute between the Tax Administration Service (SAT) and the insurance industry. However, the reality is that, due to this issue, insurance policyholders will be the ones who will see a direct impact on their insurance rates in 2026; another tiger’s stripe in the upcoming increases.
Let’s take it step by step. First, let’s remember that the retroactive collection of Value Added Tax (VAT) that the SAT, led by Antonio Martínez Dagnino, wants to apply to insurers is simply against the Constitution, which is why they came to defend themselves—the case is currently before the Federal Administrative Court. The world’s two largest insurance companies, Allianz and Axa, also resorted to international arbitration and sued Mexico, certain they would win in this case of retroactive tax collection, which is unprecedented in other markets where they operate.
However, as Ricardo Monreal, Morena’s deputy coordinator, rightly stated, governments and international companies were attentive to the issue in the Economic Package and approved changes to resolve the dispute of more than 200 billion pesos, which insurers are fighting in national and international courts, all due to a misinterpretation of the law. Accepting the SAT’s criteria as is means the insurance industry will fall into systemic risk, and as the large companies have stated, they would simply go bankrupt, and that doesn’t seem to matter to the SAT.
The objective has always been purely tax collection, and now those insurers that accept the provision established in the economic package, which is pending approval in the Senate, in order to only pay this year’s VAT credit, will have to drop their lawsuits. So far, everything indicates a good settlement.
The downside of all this, according to those familiar with the matter, is that the SAT will now charge insurance customers double VAT, both directly and indirectly. VAT is paid when the policy is purchased, and now when the policy is used for a claim, it will also be paid again, for example, for the service received at a mechanic’s shop or a hospital, without any additional oversight being applied to the latter.
The SAT maintains that VAT collection is for two distinct reasons: purchase and use. However, in truth, those who purchase a policy do so because they anticipate using it at some point and are prepared with that protection. Therefore, there is a difference in interpretation between insurers and the SAT, something that doesn’t happen anywhere in the world, only in Mexico.
This will result in a larger increase in policies, especially for Major Medical Expenses, in 2026. Ultimately, the goal was to collect more, and those who will pay will be those with insurance policies. Therefore, Mexico will also fall behind in the advancement of prevention and insurance purchase, but what matters is collecting.
The conflict between the Quintana Roo government, headed by Mara Lezama, and the Aguakán company is one of the first issues we will see discussed in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, presided over by Hugo Aguilar. It could be a clear example of what to expect in the future regarding issues where the private sector and the government disagree.
And in the midst of the national debate on the future of the amparo trial as a tool for citizen defense, this could be a case that illustrates, like few others, the need for institutional balance.
The story began when the Quintana Roo Congress repealed the decree that, more than ten years ago, this same Congress issued to ratify the concession title granted to Desarrollos Hidráulicos de Cancún, S.A. de C.V., known as Aguakán. Congress cited reasons of public interest in terminating the concession, but did so without following a technical, contractual, or transparent process. In response, the company filed an amparo lawsuit, claiming that this was done outside the rules established in the concession title, without offering compensation, and through a simple decree of the state Congress issued without hearing the concessionaire’s defense.
So far, it is known that the Court has already signaled that it will take up the case, recognizing its legal, economic, and social significance and that it could serve as an example for other cases. The Aguakán case also has investors who are, in a significant percentage, workers invested through Afores (annually-funded pension fund managers), so company investments and the savings of workers who would lose returns are at stake.
However, it has also emerged that the young legal advisor to the state government, Carlos Fuentes del Río, son of Judge Felipe Fuentes Barrera, a member of the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judicial Branch, is interested in keeping the issue from advancing to the Supreme Court. Although there are elements that suggest the Court could take the case, establishing criteria on the limits of local power, respect for public contracts, and the protection of social interests, since workers’ savings via the Afores (annually-funded pension fund) are included in this game. It is interesting to see how the issue develops, but above all, what the Court will do. We shall see.
International funds, including those from Televisa-Univision, have helped the digital financial platform Plata, led in Mexico by Neri Tollardo, reach a valuation of $3.1 billion, just as it already has a banking license and is close to completing the process to authorize its start of operations.
The results of the new investment round, which was $250 million, were interesting. Funds and several American and European family offices welcomed the investment. However, the most notable aspect of the transaction—led by Kora—was the participation of Moore Strategic Ventures, Audeo Ventures, Spice Expeditions, and Hedosophia. It builds on a previous investment from Televisa-Univision.
Plata currently has more than $1 billion invested in Mexico, much of it backed by international capital, and is awaiting the start of banking operations, as it is currently under review by the National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV), as required by law.
After years of being a benchmark in monitoring financial markets and the economy, the analysis department of Vector Casa de Bolsa closed its operations last Wednesday, October 15.
In their financial reports and on social media, staff from the area expressed their gratitude for the continued support of their analyses and announced the end of their work at the institution, which is currently under management intervention by authorities following accusations from the US government of alleged money laundering.
Thus, following the agreement with Finamex, led by Eduardo Arturo Carrillo Madero, for the transfer of accounts and investment funds, Vector took another step in the process of closing its activities. The positive aspect is that at least those areas will continue to operate under the Finamex brand. Hopefully, all will go well.
Source: elfinanciero
