SAF-T – Where Are We Now?

Paul Trowbridge
June 19, 2019

Anyone who has been closely following SAF-T announcements over the past few years may be forgiven for thinking that it all seems rather like Groundhog Day.  Commencement dates and reporting requirements have been announced and subsequently amended and re-announced as the respective countries re-evaluate their needs and the readiness of companies to provide the data in the prescribed formats.

Earlier this month Poland announced that the changes planned for 1 July 2019, requiring mandatory filing of SAF-T information and the corresponding withdrawal of the requirement to submit a periodic VAT return, have now been deferred to January 2020. 

Also this month, Romania announced plans to become the eighth country to introduce SAF-T by introducing requirements for transactional reporting by the end of 2020.   

So, what is SAF-T, what is the latest position for countries which have introduced legislation and what lies ahead?

SAF-T – The Standard Audit File for Tax

The Standard Audit File for Tax (SAF-T) was developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with the aim of producing a standardised format for electronic exchange of accounting data from organisations to their national tax authority and external auditors.

The two key principles behind SAF-T are that;

  1. Organisations should be able to export information from their accounting systems (invoices, payments, general ledger journals and master files) into a standardised format and
  2. Tax authorities and external auditors should be able to make their tax inspections and audits more efficient and effective as a result of data being made available to them in that standardised format.

In 2005 the OECD released the first version of the SAF-T schema which provides details of what should be included in a SAF-T xml reporting file and how that data should be formatted and structured.  The original schema was based on the general ledger and details of invoices and payments, together with customer and supplier master files.  A second version of the SAF-T schema was released in 2010 to incorporate information about Inventory and Fixed Assets.

What the OECD have not defined, and what remains the responsibility for the tax administration in each country to decide, is the exact format in which the data is to be captured and when and how it is required to be sent to the tax administration.

Different approaches

What has emerged from those countries which have adopted SAF-T are three broad approaches;

  • Data to be provided at the request of the tax authority (usually prior to a tax inspection or audit)
  • Submission of data periodically in addition to the periodic VAT return
  • Submission of transactional data as a replacement to the periodic VAT return

In some cases, the mandate starts with a requirement to produce data on request and evolves through to periodic submissions.

Where are we now?

There are currently seven countries which have introduced legislation enforcing SAF-T requirements.

Portugal

Portugal was one of the first adopters and Portuguese entities have been required to extract data into the SAF-T file format (based on version 1 of the OECD SAF-T schema) since 2008 on an annual basis.  Further extensions to collect sales invoice data and other documents on a monthly basis followed in 2013.

Luxembourg

Luxembourg introduced the requirement to extract data in the relevant format in 2011.  It only applies to Luxembourg resident companies subject to the local chart of accounts and is only required to be submitted when requested by the tax authority.

France

France introduced a SAF-T requirement in 2014, using a proprietary format rather than the OECD standard SAF-T schema, requiring files to be submitted in txt format.  It is currently only required to be filed on demand when requested by the French tax authority.

Austria

Austria introduced SAF-T in 2009 and is currently only required on demand when requested by the tax authority.

Poland

Possibly the most significant implementor of SAF-T to date, with large companies having had to file monthly JPK (Jednolity Plik Kontrolny) returns since 2016.

Lithuania

Lithuania introduced the requirement to file the SAF-T based i.MAS on a phased basis, starting with the largest organisations in 2016 and working towards mandating SAF-T for all businesses by 2020.  The i.MAS comprises three parts, i.SAF reporting of sales and purchase invoices on a monthly basis, i.VAZ reporting of transport/consignment documents and the i.SAF-T accounting transaction report,  which is only required when requested by the tax authority.

Norway

SAF-T has been in place on a voluntary basis since 2017 and there are proposals to mandate it, on an ‘on-demand’ basis from January 2020.

What lies ahead for the future of SAF-T?

Countries which are receiving regular, transactional level details under SAF-T may look to reduce the periodic VAT return requirements.  This is because the need to prepare a VAT return summarising the details which the tax authority already receives on a transactional basis can be seen as unnecessary duplication. 

Poland is proposing that SAF-T data submissions will displace the need for filing a VAT return from January 2020.

Romania is proposing a phased transition to filing of transactional data from 2020, starting with large organisations, with a reduction in the VAT returns which are required to be filed.

 

Take Action

To find out more about what we believe the future holds, follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter to keep up-to-date with regulatory news and other updates.

Sign up for Email Updates

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

Author

Paul Trowbridge

Paul Trowbridge is a Senior Regulatory Specialist at Sovos, with responsibility for ensuring that the SVR product is kept updated and compliant with the latest VAT legislative changes. Paul is a Chartered Accountant and Chartered Tax Adviser and prior to joining Sovos worked in a number of tax technology roles within PwC, EY and UK based software companies.
Share This Post

Tax Information Reporting United States
July 11, 2019
Why the IRS Needs to Release Cryptocurrency Tax Guidance

Despite IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig’s promise of “within the next 30 days” more than 30 days ago to Congress regarding the release of forthcoming cryptocurrency tax guidance, we have not seen anything materialize.  As we mentioned previously, the ongoing confusion related to tax reporting obligations continues to plague payers such as crypto or digital currency […]

EMEA Tax Compliance
July 10, 2019
New Regulation Reinforces Free Flow of Data in the EU

When thinking about the aim of GDPR, one of the first things that comes to mind is the set of rules, obligations, and restrictions on the processing of personal data. When in fact, as the full title of GDPR – General Data Protection Regulation – and its recitals explain, the subject matter and purpose of […]

E-Invoicing Compliance EMEA
July 10, 2019
Greek E-Invoicing Reform: Potential Impact of Recent National Elections

On 7 July, Greece began voting to elect a new government.  The disposed governing left party has been dealt with a hefty blow having been in power since 2015.  It was hoped they would introduce less severe politics which many claim they have not only failed to do but, in fact, they actually introduced stricter […]

Tax Information Reporting United States
July 9, 2019
The IRS Is Allowing TIN Masking on Form W-2. Here’s Why It’s a Good Idea

At last, the IRS is allowing payers to truncate, or effectively mask, tax identification numbers (TINs) on Forms W-2 sent to payees. The decision comes after years of concern from companies and taxpayers about the risk of exposing TINs, or Social Security Numbers in the case of individual payees, in W-2 distributions.  The new policy […]

EMEA IPT
July 9, 2019
Interpreting Insurance Tax Legislation

Tax legislation is sometimes structured, or worded, ambiguously.  This leaves scope for a number of different interpretations for the treatment of tax on insurance policies, some leading to a lower tax liability than others. This can often be seen when different insurance premium tax (IPT) rates apply to specific sub-classes of the same business or […]