Crypto accounting & tax in Mexico

Mexico: accounting context for crypto records

A firm closing crypto records for Mexico should begin with the reporting framework that governs the entity, then keep the wallet and exchange evidence that supports each balance, movement and adjustment. The profile below is a working checklist for that review; it does not replace current local advice.

Framework and classification

The default framework shown for Mexico is NIF. The recorded classification context is: IAS 38 intangible (most common); IAS 2 inventory if held for sale in ordinary course. No dedicated IFRS crypto standard.. For the close file, retain the conclusion, the source records used to reach it, and the reason a different classification was not used. That makes the balance review reproducible when the next period starts.

Measurement and evidence at close

The reporting notes for Mexico state: IAS 38: cost model or revaluation model (if active market). IAS 2: lower of cost and NRV.. Build the close pack around transaction exports, wallet addresses, reconciliations, valuation evidence and the review notes for unresolved items. The objective is a clear path from the source activity to the ledger balance, not a number that cannot later be explained.

Entity and reporting handover

The country profile records this reporting context: Listed entities use IFRS. Others use NIF (Normas de Información Financiera).. Its country-specific close note is: —. Assign ownership for open reconciliations, preserve the evidence behind manual adjustments, and document any question that needs specialist review. This gives the next preparer and reviewer a usable handover rather than a generic crypto checklist.

A practical Mexico close file

Start the Mexico file with a complete source inventory. List every exchange account, wallet address, custodian statement and internal ledger account used in the period. For each source, record the owner, the export date, the period covered and whether the balance was reconciled. Match transfers on both sides before asking whether they affect profit or loss. Keep network-fee records with the transaction they support. If a balance cannot be tied to source activity, put it on an exceptions list with an owner and next action. This separates evidence gathering from judgement and gives the reviewer a visible place to challenge an assumption.

Records for Mexico are kept in MXN, and the profile lists two different rate sources: BANXICO for reporting and SAT for tax. When those series disagree on a period-end date the two figures are both defensible and not interchangeable, so note which source produced each converted balance at the point it is booked. Under NIF the profile permits FIFO, WAVG and prohibits LIFO; where more than one method is permitted the election is a disclosed accounting policy, so record which was chosen and keep it stable between periods.

The profile records a 30% corporate rate for Mexico. No wash-sale restriction is recorded, so a disposal and a later repurchase are separate events in the ledger, which makes the disposal date and the lot it consumed the facts worth pinning down. Individuals are recorded under a capital gains regime at 35%, which is a different basis from the entity position above; when the same wallet serves both, the split has to be evidenced rather than assumed.

Controls before reporting

Before reporting, perform a completeness review that is separate from the accounting review. Confirm that every known exchange, wallet, custodian, staking arrangement and controlled entity appears in the source inventory. Check that the period boundaries are consistent across exports, that balances were captured at the intended close point, and that any late-arriving transaction is either incorporated or logged. Compare asset quantities to the ledger and investigate unexplained differences before aggregating values. Where a source cannot be obtained, record the reason, the alternative evidence used and the approval for that approach. These controls make the Mexico file useful to a preparer, reviewer and auditor who were not involved in the initial collection.

Questions to carry into the next period

A strong close file also identifies what has not been settled. Keep a concise register of missing evidence, unresolved classifications, valuation questions, intercompany movements and corrections that need follow-up. For each item, assign a responsible person, the source that should resolve it, and the point at which it must be revisited. Do not turn an unresolved item into a silent assumption merely to finish the close. A transparent register lets the firm complete the current work while keeping future treatment reviewable under the framework and reporting context applicable to Mexico.

Making the review reproducible

Save the review steps as well as the result. Record who downloaded each source, when the reconciliation was performed, which balances were sampled, what evidence was inspected and how exceptions were cleared. Retain the version of the workpaper that supported the final journals, rather than overwriting it after the close. If the same asset appears in a later period, the firm should be able to start with the earlier conclusion and test whether the facts changed. This disciplined record makes the Mexico workflow repeatable across staff changes and reporting periods without claiming that any single treatment applies to every entity.