SAT tightens data cross-checks and slows refund processing: what changes for taxpayers in 2026
The tax authority is speeding up the verification of deductions and receipts, and that’s translating into slower refunds and more information requests.
The Tax Administration Service (SAT) is deepening its information cross-checks to validate that the deductions reported by taxpayers correspond to transactions that actually took place and are properly documented. This is not a minor shift: it is already showing up in a more moderate increase in the amount refunded for tax overpayments (refund balances), after a period of extraordinary expansion in recent years.
According to figures reported by the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP), refunds from overpayments reached 972.999 billion pesos in 2025, a nominal year-over-year increase of 4.0%. That contrasts with the surge seen in 2022, when annual growth hit 28% and the volume of refunds topped one trillion pesos, driven by a combination of a larger taxpayer base, process digitization, and the carryover from regularizations and accumulated balances.
Specialists and tax sources agree that the slowdown does not necessarily mean a broad refusal to issue refunds, but rather a more granular—and therefore slower—review of automatic refunds and the validation of personal deductions. SAT has tightened verification of the information contained in CFDIs (digital tax invoices) and the consistency between what is reported, what is invoiced, and the traceability of payment—especially in categories such as medical services, where mistakes are often common.
In practice, typical friction points include invoices with inconsistent data, cash payments for items that require electronic payment methods, or attempted deductions for expenses invoiced under the name of someone other than the taxpayer requesting the refund. There are also cases of incorrectly entered CLABE bank account numbers, or refunds that require additional clarification due to discrepancies with withholding agents or CFDI issuers.
This tightening is happening in a context of public finances under pressure from higher spending needs and the challenge of sustaining revenue without raising tax rates. Mexico has made progress in tax-collection efficiency in recent years through enforcement and digitization, with SAT focused on expanding the tax base, reducing evasion, and cracking down on simulated invoicing schemes. In that framework, refunds become a sensitive issue: they are a taxpayer right when applicable, but also a risk point for the authority when misused to drain public resources.
The “new normal” for refunds: more evidence, more traceability
Heading into 2026, the central message is that it’s no longer enough to simply “have the invoice.” Validation is shifting toward economic substance and end-to-end consistency of the transaction: that the service was actually provided, the good was delivered, the payment is traceable, and there is consistency among the CFDI, the payment method, the issuer, and the taxpayer claiming the deduction. For medical deductions, for example, the use of transfers, cards, and other bank-based payment methods is key, and taxpayers may be required to gather additional evidence—such as diagnoses, doctors’ orders, lab results, or supporting documentation—if the authority requests clarification. For household finances, this implies an administrative and time cost: organizing receipts ahead of time, reviewing CFDIs issued by providers, and confirming that payments comply with tax rules, especially during annual filing season.
The tax authority has announced and implemented post–annual-filing-season support schemes to resolve issues, offering direct guidance on inconsistencies that prevent an automatic refund. While these mechanisms can reduce disputes by providing a correction path, they also suggest that “automatic” refunds will be less common in cases with sensitive variables (payment method, taxpayer/beneficiary matching, withholding discrepancies, or CFDIs with errors).
For taxpayers, the immediate implication is operational: expect that April—key month for individuals’ annual returns—may come with additional information requests. For the government, the effect is twofold: on one hand, improper refunds are contained and revenue is protected; on the other, the process can increase the service burden and raise the perception of friction if timelines lengthen. At the macro level, the speed of refunds also affects liquidity: households and small businesses often factor those funds into their cash flow, so widespread delays can be felt in consumption or short-term payments, although the impact will depend on the scale and concentration of the cases.
In perspective, SAT’s strategy aligns with a global trend: more analytical tax administrations supported by data and digital traceability. In Mexico, the expansion of the CFDI system, payment complements, and interconnected reporting have built an ecosystem in which the authority can spot discrepancies more quickly. The challenge will be maintaining a balance between enforcement and certainty, so that compliant taxpayers do not face disproportionate obstacles and so that clarification processes are fast and transparent.
In short, the slower growth rate of refunds in 2025 reflects more targeted enforcement around deductions and supporting documentation. The signal for 2026 is clear: a refund is still available when it applies, but the evidentiary standard and upfront validation will be more demanding—so document readiness will be decisive.
