But; None of these legal provisions implies that the head of the collection agency of the Matehuala subdelegation of the Mexican Social Security Institute has the material competence to appoint the expert, who must therefore be declared null and void. We believe that the test set out in this document is correct, since the IMSS, like any authority, is only empowered to do what the law allows, i.e. when issuing an act of authority – such as a home visit order or a request for information. In addition to stating the reasons for its issuance, it must indicate the legal provisions conferring these powers. As can be seen, it is important to identify precisely the differences between the expiry period and the limitation period in order to know what measures to take against a power of attorney (exercise of supervisory powers in the first case and recovery of debts in the second case). The Institute shall have access to all types of statistical, census and tax material and, in general, shall receive from public bodies all data or reports deemed necessary in the absence of a legal prohibition. This power to fix credits in its favour at a liquid level expires for a period of five years, which is not interrupted, and is calculated from the moment when the employer or another legally obliged entity becomes aware of the liquidation or the institution itself of the event giving rise to the obligation (Article 297 of the NSSO). The merit condition provides, inter alia, for the powers and allocations of that undertaking to determine the tax credits in its favour and the basis for the settlement of allowances and increases and their accessories, and to fix them in liquid quantities, collect them, preserve them, in addition to establishing the existence, content and extent of the obligations not fulfilled by the employers; Use the data in his possession or substantiate facts of which he has knowledge in the exercise of his powers of control, order and carry out home visits and request the issuance of books and documents in order to verify compliance with the obligations provided for by the Social Security Act and other applicable provisions. Consequently, the finding of the contracting authority that the Institute exercises these powers of control in accordance with one of the provisions of Art. 42 of the Federal Tax Code, it is misleading, since Articles 15, 16, 40, 277, 289 291, 298 and 305 of the Law on social insurance refer to the Tax Code, and it is also true that none of those provisions relates to the powers of supervision corresponding to the first expressly provided for and regulated by the abovementioned Article 251 of the Special Law. Thesis 14 A of the Third Collegiate Court of the Seventeenth District.

Tax Revision 5/2003. 6 March 2003. Unanimity of votes. Article 255 The Mexican social security institution is considered accredited and is therefore not required to provide legal deposits or bonds, even in the case of amparo proceedings. The institution`s property intended for the direct provision of its services is unseizable. Article 146 of the SBB provides that the limitation period is calculated from the moment when payment could be required by law, i.e. because of the existence of a duly notified firm decision establishing a tax credit for the employer. According to the content of article 50 of the Social Security Code, it is known that the institution must inform the employer if it classifies an accident or disease as occupational if the evidence provided does not prove that the Mexican social security institution has fulfilled its obligation to inform the employer of the qualification of the accident attributed to one of its employees. and the assessment of the permanent partial disability granted, such an accident cannot be taken into account in the decision to adjust the risk premium for occupational risk insurance, since the fact of not being informed of it to the employer restricts his rights of defence, since he does not have the possibility of bringing proceedings against him by the means of defence which he considers appropriate.

Without the foregoing conclusion being called into question by the content of Article 22 of the Regulation on the classification of undertakings and the determination of premiums for insurance against occupational risks (*), which requires the employer to keep a detailed register of his accidents at work and to obtain the relevant information from the worker, since it is not necessary to lose sight of them, that the sole function or object of the regulations is the implementation of the resulting law. The Congress of the Union develops and supplements it in detail, which implies that it is a subordinate norm that has its norm and justification in the law, so that it cannot amend, restrict or extend the legislation adopted by the legislator, otherwise it would obviously encroach on the field of attributions which, for this purpose, applies exclusively to our maximum legal system. Therefore, if in the regulation that concerns us, by imposing on the employer the obligation to collect the relevant documents from the employee or his relatives if they do not deliver, goes beyond the text of the law, if it obliges the Mexican social security institution to inform employers if they qualify an accident or disease as occupational.