Mexico’s Hacienda Warns of Regional Varied Impact from Remittance Tax; Neutral Effect on Public Finances

Web Editor

May 27, 2025

a man in a suit and tie sitting in a chair with a book in his hand and a red background, Carlos Fran

Introduction to the Remittance Tax Proposal by U.S. Government

The Mexican Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP) has stated that while the proposed remittance tax by the U.S. government will directly affect remittances, its impact on Mexico’s public finances will be neutral. The tax, initially a 5% levy proposed by President Donald Trump’s administration, has since been reduced to 3.5%. This tax has raised concerns about its potential effects on Mexico, where remittances are a crucial income source for numerous families and account for 3.5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Regional Impact Variation and Importance of Remittances

Edgar Amador Zamora, Mexico’s Secretary of Finance, highlighted during the National Meeting of Regional Councilors of BBVA that remittances are a significant income source for families in certain Mexican states. The imposed tax could have substantial regional impacts, though these will vary considerably.

  • The tax’s impact could represent around 3% of the GDP on average, but regionally, it will differ.
  • For instance, remittances may account for 20% of family income in some regions while contributing up to 10% of the GDP in other states.

Amador Zamora explained that the tax, if implemented, would constitute double taxation since it targets income that has already been taxed. This could potentially violate the bilateral tax agreement between Mexico and the United States.

Impact on U.S. and Mexican Economies

The Secretary of Finance clarified that when the Mexican peso appreciates, remittances increase, potentially leading to additional U.S. dollars being sent to Mexico. This could decrease the disposable income of U.S. consumers.

“The impact will ultimately be borne by the U.S. domestic market (…) it is an unjust and discriminatory tax,” Amador Zamora stated.

Regional Distribution of Remittances in Mexico

According to Banco de México (Banxico) data, of the $14.269 billion in remittances that entered Mexico during the first quarter of 2022, 8.9% went to Michoacán, one of Mexico’s poorest states. Consequently, Michoacán is the leading recipient of remittances in the country, followed by Jalisco (8.8%) and Guanajuato (8.5%).

Furthermore, BBVA’s analysis indicates that by 2023, remittances in Chiapas represented 15.9% of the GDP, Guerrero 13.8%, Michoacán 11.1%, Oaxaca 10.7%, and Zacatecas 10.5%.

Fiscal Amortizers in Times of Uncertainty

Amidst uncertainty, with risks still present, Amador Zamora expressed confidence in Mexico’s fiscal amortizers to navigate the current economic climate.

He pointed out that the Fondo de Estabilización de los Ingresos Presupuestarios (FEIP) holds a balance exceeding 100,000 million pesos.

Key Questions and Answers

  • What is the proposed remittance tax by the U.S. government? It was initially a 5% levy, later reduced to 3.5%, targeting remittances sent by U.S. residents to Mexico.
  • How will this tax impact Mexico’s public finances? The SHCP states that the effect on public finances will be neutral.
  • What is the regional variation in remittance impact? The tax’s impact could represent around 3% of the GDP on average but will differ regionally, with some areas seeing remittances account for 20% of family income or up to 10% of the GDP.
  • Why is there concern about this tax? Critics argue it constitutes double taxation, targeting income that has already been taxed, potentially violating the bilateral tax agreement between Mexico and the U.S.
  • Which Mexican states receive the most remittances? Michoacán, Jalisco, and Guanajuato are the leading recipients, accounting for 8.9%, 8.8%, and 8.5% of total remittances, respectively.
  • How does the Secretary of Finance view the tax’s impact on both economies? Amador Zamora believes the U.S. domestic market will ultimately bear the brunt of this tax, describing it as unjust and discriminatory.