On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court (“SCJN”) (Amparo en Revisión 551/2024) held that a retail store commercializing menstrual hygiene products lacks standing to challenge, by means of an amparo proceeding, the constitutionality of Article 2-A of the Value Added Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto al Valor Agregado, “LIVA”). Said provision establishes that the sale of menstrual cups, sanitary pads, and tampons for menstrual hygiene products is subject to a 0% rate for value added tax (“VAT”) purposes, while excluding other menstrual hygiene products from such treatment.

‍

The ruling approved by the SCJN establishes that the taxpayer (i.e., the seller of products) lacks legal standing to file a proceeding against LIVA, insofar as it does not suffer a direct economic impact, given that its role is limited to collecting and transferring the VAT borne by the end consumer. Accordingly, the SCJN considered that it is the end consumer who suffers actual economic harm by directly absorbing the payment of VAT at the 16% rate.

‍

This precedent departs from prior criteria adopted by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (see, e.g., 2a./J. 30/2009), which held that the seller of products does have legal standing to challenge Article 2-A, Section I, of the LIVA.

‍

In our view, this precedent is questionable because it overlooks the fact that the seller of products, by virtue of its position as a taxable person within the VAT mechanism, also suffers adverse effects from the application of one VAT rate or another. Furthermore, restricting the admissibility of proceedings against indirect taxes solely to end consumers constitutes an obstacle to the constitutional review of such taxes and undermines the effectiveness of the amparo proceeding, as each individual consumer would be required to file a separate constitutional trial.

‍

This precedent was approved by a majority of five votes; consequently, it does not constitute binding case law. Nevertheless, it may be relied upon to deny the admissibility of amparo proceedings filed by sellers of any type of products challenging Article 2-A of the LIVA, which establishes a 0% rate for certain products while excluding, at times without justification, others. This ruling is therefore of particular significance.

‍

We recommend evaluating any positions that may have been adopted within your organization regarding the application of the 0% VAT rate.

‍

For any questions or comments, you can contact our expert team.