This blog was last updated on May 28, 2026

France’s e-invoicing reform is no longer just a national issue. As the European ViDA — VAT in the Digital Age — project takes shape, one question is increasingly being raised by businesses: is the French model truly compatible with the future European architecture for digital VAT?

This was the central question addressed on May 6, 2026, at the Palais Brongniart, during a roundtable bringing together :

• Lucile Tavernier, Deputy Director of the E-invoicing Project at the French tax authority (DGFiP);
• Tania Saulnier, Deputy Director of Tax Affairs at MEDEF;
• and Vincent Weverberg, Senior Advisor at the Belgian tax administration.

The discussion, moderated by Christiaan Van der Valk, Chief Regulatory and Industry Affairs Officer at Sovos, brought together the perspectives of the French administration, businesses and the Belgian tax administration.

From the outset, Christiaan Van der Valk framed the debate: few serious observers question the overall compatibility of the French reform with ViDA. The real question lies elsewhere: are there, in the spirit or in the details of the European text, any adjustments that should be anticipated to ensure truly operational convergence?

One conclusion quickly emerged. The French reform now appears broadly aligned with ViDA’s direction of travel. But the real test will be implementation: formats, standards, interoperability, the role of platforms, reporting, payment data and data sovereignty. Beyond regulatory compatibility, what is really at stake is companies’ ability to concretely absorb European convergence.

ViDA: European convergence, but not a single model

The ViDA project marks a new stage in the digital transformation of European taxation. But it does not mean immediate uniformity. As Lucile Tavernier recalled, a European directive sets a common framework while leaving Member States some room to adapt it to their national context.

For the DGFiP, this room for interpretation is essential. The compatibility of the French reform with ViDA must not be merely formal: it must allow businesses to operate within a stable and lasting framework by 2030. According to Lucile Tavernier, the French model, as redesigned since late 2024, is built precisely around this European trajectory.

Businesses take a more nuanced view. For Tania Saulnier, ViDA’s overall architecture appears largely compatible with the French system, but “the devil is in the details.” The directive remains very general, and the real difficulties will be operational: formats, scope of obligations, interoperability, reporting methods and the way the various systems fit together.

MEDEF also emphasizes the need for more transparent and more open work at the European level. Tania Saulnier noted that European workstreams are sometimes difficult for businesses to follow, even though their feedback is essential to address very practical issues. In her view, ViDA’s success will therefore require in-depth consultation with businesses, professionals and service providers.

This is one of the key challenges of the reform: European convergence cannot be achieved through legislation alone. It requires concrete harmonization of practices, formats and interpretations. Otherwise, companies could end up facing a patchwork of national projects, even though ViDA is intended to build a common framework.

Cyrille Sautereau also spoke during the discussion to highlight the complexity of use cases already addressed in the French framework. In his view, France has already had to confront several constraints that will also arise at European level, particularly because the data extracted from invoices must be usable for reporting, control and, eventually, prefilled VAT returns. He specifically mentioned the difficulties associated with transparent intermediaries, where the parties issuing or transmitting invoices are not necessarily the ones accounting for them.

The issue therefore goes beyond legal compliance alone. ViDA opens a new phase in which the challenge will be technical, normative and operational.

France and Belgium: two strategies for the same destination

The comparison between France and Belgium was one of the main threads running through the roundtable. Both countries are moving toward the generalization of e-invoicing, but at different paces and through different methods.

France has chosen an integrated rollout. It combines e-invoicing and reporting from the outset, with a gradual ramp-up depending on company category. For Lucile Tavernier, this choice prevents companies from having to adapt their systems once for e-invoicing, and then a second time for reporting. The French model was designed as a complete architecture, intended to scale up gradually.

Belgium, for its part, has opted for a sequential approach. Vincent Weverberg explained that the first objective was to require adoption of the Peppol standard and network, before later introducing reporting. This approach is intended in particular to limit the immediate impact on businesses. He nevertheless noted that the Belgian reporting component had not yet been adopted, although political approval is expected in the coming months.

This difference in method allowed Christiaan Van der Valk to raise a central question: with hindsight, should France have proceeded in two stages, like Belgium or Germany, or is its integrated rollout actually a success factor?

The answer depends on the perspective. For the French administration, integrating e-invoicing and reporting simultaneously helps limit successive rework. For MEDEF, however, this simultaneity remains a point of vigilance. Tania Saulnier recalled that MEDEF had argued for separating e-invoicing from e-reporting, considering them two massive projects that are difficult for companies to carry out at the same time.

The debate around EDI and platforms illustrates this tension. Christiaan Van der Valk recalled that some large companies and sectors remain strongly attached to their existing EDI flows. In Belgium, direct exchanges may remain possible under certain conditions when supplier and buyer agree. In France, the model is based instead on mandatory use of certified platforms.

For Lucile Tavernier, the use of platforms is justified by the need to guarantee data reliability and secure exchanges. She also emphasized that the French core formats are designed to be inclusive, and that the use of EDIFACT is not excluded as long as the necessary data can be extracted in a compliant format.

Tania Saulnier nevertheless recalled that some EDI flows have been working effectively for a long time in several sectors. In her view, the goal should not be to “unpick something that works” when existing practices can be made compatible with European requirements.

The discussion also highlighted a significant uncertainty around the role of platforms under ViDA. Tania Saulnier noted that, for e-invoicing, the directive appears to preserve freedom of exchange between supplier and customer. However, whether Member States will be able to impose a platform for the transmission of reporting information remains less clear and will need to be clarified.

Lucile Tavernier responded that intermediation continues to make sense when fiscal data must be made reliable and company data must be secured. She also recalled that, in theory, a company can become a certified platform for its own needs, provided it meets the certification requirements.

The challenge, then, is to strike the right balance: preserving existing flows when they are reliable, while guaranteeing the quality, security and fiscal usability of the data. A large part of European convergence will be determined precisely on this ground.

Tax data: the next frontier of the reform

As the discussion unfolded, the roundtable gradually shifted focus. E-invoicing is not limited to the transmission of invoices. It also raises questions related to invoice lifecycle statuses, payment data, prefilled VAT returns, tax control and data sovereignty.

Christiaan Van der Valk notably asked the panel about payment confirmation, introduced in the French framework. For Lucile Tavernier, this data is first and foremost a factor in making VAT data more reliable. It is necessary for transactions where VAT becomes chargeable upon payment, particularly services, and it conditions the future ability to prefill VAT returns.

Vincent Weverberg emphasized that Belgium is in a different situation, as the cash-accounting VAT regime only applies to limited cases there. A generalization does not appear to be on the agenda, both for legal reasons and because of the operational burden it would create for tax control services.

Tania Saulnier, for her part, acknowledged the usefulness of the invoice lifecycle as designed in the French reform, particularly to distinguish between technical statuses and refusals by the customer. However, she warned against certain additional obligations, such as customer reporting, which she considers disproportionate when they lead to a doubling of reporting flows.

The question of prefilled VAT returns was then addressed as a medium-term horizon. Christiaan Van der Valk recalled that the issue remains complex, especially for large companies, and raised two questions: is full prefilled reporting realistic? And does it truly simplify things, or does it require companies to further strengthen their reconciliation work?

Lucile Tavernier responded cautiously. Companies will remain responsible for their returns and will still have to validate them. The quality of prefilled returns will depend on the completeness of the data reported. At this stage, the timeline mentioned is no earlier than 2029 or 2030, as the administration will first need a complete reporting cycle before developing such a tool.

Vincent Weverberg also adopted a cautious position for Belgium. Prefilled returns are not a short-term objective, notably because of the specific features of the Belgian VAT regime, but they are now being considered for the medium or long term, subject to changes in the regulatory framework.

For MEDEF, the immediate priority is first to make the reform work before opening a new phase. Tania Saulnier emphasized the need to observe how the system functions before going further on prefilled returns. Above all, she broadened the discussion to tax control: if administrations have access tomorrow to an unprecedented mass of data, businesses expect in return better-targeted audits and a lighter burden for good-faith taxpayers.

Vincent Weverberg offered a similar perspective from the Belgian side: when the administration already has certain invoicing data, companies should no longer be asked to provide information that is already known. This is one of the possible promises of tax digitalization: reducing administrative redundancies, provided systems can actually reuse the data collected.

But the growing importance of data also raises sensitive questions. Tania Saulnier warned about the commercially sensitive and sometimes strategic nature of the data to which administrations will have access. In her view, the issue goes beyond cybersecurity alone: it also raises questions of sovereignty and European oversight of data.

Lucile Tavernier responded that France has put in place a high level of requirements for platforms and its own tools. However, she also acknowledged that data sovereignty will have to remain a long-term point of attention, at every stage of the integration of European and global flows.

Conclusion : from Legal Compatibility to Operational Convergence

The roundtable clarified one essential point: the French reform appears compatible with ViDA in its broad principles. But this compatibility will not be enough. The challenge now is to achieve truly operational convergence.

ViDA sets a common direction, but several questions remain open: interpretation of the texts, formats, standard extensions, interoperability, the role of platforms, the place of EDI flows, the relationship between e-invoicing and reporting, prefilled VAT returns and data governance.

France has a clear head start, recognized by several speakers, notably thanks to the work already carried out with the ecosystem and the use cases addressed in the French framework. But this head start will only become a European asset if it contributes to harmonization rather than adding another layer of complexity.

For businesses, the challenge goes beyond simply being able to issue or receive electronic invoices. It is now about organizing themselves to track the data transmitted, understand future European requirements, preserve existing flows when useful, and prepare for a tax environment that is more interconnected, more demanding and more data-driven.