In Mexico, three levels of government coexist. We are a federal country that has around 2,500 municipalities, most of them concentrated in the South. Only Fiscal Zone 7, a reference for the National Fiscal Coordination System (SNCF), has about half of them. municipalities, highlighting the state of Oaxaca, with 570, of which 417 are customs and customs, which are not subject to electoral rules and generally last one year.
Since 1983, municipalities have had the power to collect property taxes exclusively; unfortunately, they do not exercise it due to the precariousness of their administrative structure, and in many states they are collected by agreement by state authorities. Within the framework of the National Fiscal Coordination System, they receive the Municipal Development Fund, whose payment is made through the finance secretariats or their equivalent in the federal entities. In addition, they receive at least 20 percent of the General Participation Fund, which must be covered by the state SFs, who receive the resources deposited by TESOFE. In this regard, the Law establishes a short period for payment to be made.
We know that there are a large number of municipalities in marginal conditions, even in extreme poverty, which is why property tax collection is concentrated in around a few municipalities, as well as municipal debt, which leaves states with a large number of municipalities. in the last places.
In the reform of the Participation Distribution Formula of 1990, the formula of the Municipal Development Fund was modified, including the dynamics of property tax collection and water rights. With which the fiscal effort of each municipality was rewarded.
On the other hand, when Ramo 33 is created, the FORTAMUN and the FISM are created, which are equivalent, for reference only, to 5 points of the RFP, but they are resources labeled for specific purposes. Opportunities around them were even opened in BANOBRAS, for a period of three years. But that is another issue different from the National Fiscal Coordination System.
In both cases the ASF is the supervisory entity.
The income of the municipalities is audited by the ASF and the area in charge of doing so is the Federalized Spending Audit, which audits almost four-fifths of the total reviews, equivalent to one-third of the budget resources. In the last two years, the number of audited municipalities has increased thanks to the technological development of the ASF, and in almost 10 states all of their municipalities are reviewed. This being an exclusive faculty of the ASF.
There is already an area of Forensic Audit of Federalized Spending, which includes states, municipalities, local congresses, state universities, autonomous organizations, etc.
In congruence with this idea, the Superior Audit of the Federation promotes dialogue and collaboration with the audited entities, accentuating the double vocation of the superior audit entity, which in addition to sanctioning when necessary, is above all preventive, to guarantee actions that guarantee public value in the exercise of spending.
The links that we have strengthened with the federal entities and the municipalities have translated into better results in the inspection, thanks, for example, to the training we provide to an important part of the municipalities, and to the technological development, proof of this is the increase in the number of audits in the last two fiscal years, with the Colmena model, with the support of the state authorities, by convening them for the signatures of the Agreements and the training process by the personnel of the entity of the ASF.
Superior Auditor of the Federation