Intra-Group Invoices: From Haven of Peace to Corporate Achilles Heel

Christiaan van der Valk
October 10, 2018

Few things in VAT are ever straightforward. A notable exception is the unambiguous requirement to issue, process and archive compliant invoices for all transactions ‘within the scope of VAT’ – roughly, transactions between VAT-registered entities, whether they explicitly carry VAT or not.

What constitutes a ‘compliant’ invoice is, of course, defined by applicable VAT law – requirements typically address the form (paper, electronic, or either) and content (minimum data, applicable tax rate) and range from pretty simple to virtually incomprehensible.

Practically speaking, if you’re a registered business and you sell something to another registered business, you must issue a compliant invoice. For the avoidance of doubt, VAT experts have invented the ‘arm’s length principle’ to clarify that this applies regardless of whether or not such companies are independent or belong to the same corporation. This area of ‘intercompany’ (or perhaps more correctly: intra-group) invoicing is currently causing unprecedented levels of anxiety in multinational organizations. To understand why, let’s look at how corporations came to think of such invoices as the one area where the shift to e-invoicing legislation in many countries created an opportunity to reduce rather than increase complexity.

Something odd happened when, in the years following the turn of the millennium, e-invoicing was introduced as an option in the European Union – and many other countries outside Latin America – with the only condition that taxpayers maintain evidence of invoice integrity and authenticity. Seeing that invoices could now be in electronic format in these countries, many international companies with multiple subsidiaries but a single ERP system decided that their internal processes and security safeguards provided a superior environment for meeting these evidence requirements compared to practices in the paper-based world where such invoices were printed and often physically exchanged between group legal entities. From that moment onwards, these corporations have considered that there was no better way to meet e-invoicing requirements in such ‘post audit e-invoicing’ countries than to keep invoices within the ERP and essentially just mimic an invoice exchange between database entries. This was a welcome decision because it was consistent with existing enterprise tools and stood in sharp contrast to the complex requirements that external e-invoices were subjected to under e-invoicing and e-archiving requirements in these jurisdictions.

This relatively effective ‘sweeping under the carpet’ of intercompany invoices in post audit countries is now backfiring. Here’s why.

  • The first reason is driven by corporate income tax considerations rather than VAT or invoicing rules. In the past few years, tax administrations have started taking radical measures in an area of tax avoidance that has become known as base erosion and profit shifting (often shortened to ‘BEPS’) by multinational enterprises. This article isn’t about BEPS as such but suffice it to say here that OECD attention and aggressive policy measures in this area have catapulted intra-group transactions from their haven of peace within corporate systems into the uncomfortable spotlight of geopolitical strife.
  • Adding insult to injury, the wave of real-time and near-real-time VAT control measures being introduced in countries outside of Latin America – including the European Union – brings companies back to the reality that intra-group invoices aren’t actually exempted from any VAT invoicing rules. If in Hungary or Spain invoices must be reported dynamically to the tax administration – or worse, if in Italy an invoice cannot be validly issued unless the tax administration has approved – this also applies, mutatis mutandis, to intra-group invoices.

These two colossal tax policy agendas are conspiring to force multinationals into an immediate re-evaluation of their digital transformation programs. It’s difficult enough to prepare external invoice flows for the digital tax tsunami, but at least most companies have over the past decade taken process, organizational and technical measures to prepare such external documents for the rugged conditions of exchange with diverse trading partners outside the corporate firewall. Taking intra-group invoices from their cozy databases into a world where tax administrations assume they can be converted into massively complex XML formats of their design, digitally signed and exchanged by both the supplier and the buyer with tax administration platforms according to very specific request-and-approval choreographies, and then being archived in accordance with heterogenous legal requirements, is truly like telling your average office clerk they have 24 hours to climb the Annapurna.

Multinationals, it’s high time to take a hard look at your intra-group invoices and prepare them for a radically different future.

Take Action

Learn more about Sovos eInvoicing solutions and how to stay compliant amid changing regulations. 

Sign up for Email Updates

Stay up to date with the latest tax and compliance updates that may impact your business.

Author

Christiaan van der Valk

Christiaan Van Der Valk is vice president, strategy. Elected a World Economic Forum Global Leader for Tomorrow in 2000, Christiaan is an internationally recognized voice on e-business strategy, law, policy, best practice and commercial issues. Formerly co-founder and president of Trustweaver (acquired by Sovos), Christiaan also holds long-standing leadership roles at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the European E-invoicing Service Providers Association (EESPA). Over the past 20 years, he has presented at and authored key papers for international meetings at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Asia Europe Meeting, World Trade Organization and several other UN agencies. Christiaan earned his Master of Laws degree from Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Share This Post

Sales & Use Tax United States
August 22, 2019
Benefits of Sales Tax Automation Software and Deployment Options

You operate a lean tax compliance and reporting team. Maybe your company has reduced staff over the past 5-10 years while continuing to grow its business through organic means as well as merger and acquisition.  But now your staff of 10 is down to four or five. What was once a manageable manual process of […]

Tax Information Reporting United States
August 19, 2019
Negative Reporting – What If I Have No Records to Report?

If you have no new unclaimed property records for a particular state this filing year, does that mean you are off the hook? Well, not necessarily.   Most states want you to file with them each year. If you’ve reported in the past, they want to hear from you even in the years when you […]

Tax Information Reporting United States
August 19, 2019
To Aggregate or Not to Aggregate – There Is No Question – Not

Article written By Bill Dadmun, Records and Receipts Manager, State of Virginia   How many of you use the aggregate function when reporting?  Does it make your life easier?  Listen to this scenario and tell me if it sounds familiar.   You get a call from someone that is due $49.95 from a credit balance.  […]

Tax Information Reporting United States
August 19, 2019
Reciprocal Filing – Why You Should Proceed with Extreme Caution

This isn’t the first time I’ve blogged about the dangers of reciprocal filing, but I feel like it is a topic worth covering again for those who may have missed it. Reciprocal or exchange filing means reporting records to a state even though the last known addresses for the records are not in that state. […]

Tax Information Reporting United States
August 19, 2019
Demystifying Codes for Unclaimed Property Compliance

Have you ever been confused about which property code to use for a certain type of property? We have all been there. NAUPA, the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators, has a list of standard codes that you can view here starting at the bottom of page 23.   Each code is made up of two alpha […]