Part III of V – Eric Lefebvre, chief technology officer, Sovos
Click here to read part II of the series.
Government-mandated e-invoicing laws are making their way across nearly every region of the globe, bringing more stringent mandates and expectations on businesses. Inserted into every aspect of your operation, governments are now an omni-present influence in your data stack reviewing every transaction in real time as it traverses your network. Real-time monitoring has also brought about real-time enforcement that can range in severity from significant fines to shutting your business down completely. All of this has created a new reality for IT leaders who need a strategy to deal with these global changes. We asked our chief technology officer, Eric Lefebvre to offer his guidance on how this will affect IT departments and how they can best prepare.
Q: With government authorities now in companies’ data and demanding real or near real-time reporting, what impact will this have on IT departments?
Eric Lefebvre: Centralization is the key, but there is a process that needs to be followed to execute correctly. At the outset, centralization needs to start with business processes, practices, tools and standardization on data push/pull technologies across the organization. Next, IT needs to consider data based on SLA-based needs. Starting with:
Delivery Data:
Once this has been solidified, IT can then focus on operational data, which contains:
IT departments need to focus on availability of data by adding multiple replicated sources of that data. Location of data is another critical need driven by mandates mostly shifting to keeping data local, as we are seeing in countries such as Saudi Arabia and many other East Asian nations. IT departments need to ensure that satellite data stores can be provided, which are critical to countries with those specifications. Centralization of processes and tools for delivery of data is step one. For step two, data needs to be split, moving away from storing data for years in a single data store, making it impossible to move/replicate and make it available.
Q: To meet government mandates and ensure operations continue uninterrupted, what should IT prioritize? What approach would you recommend?
Eric Lefebvre: As organizations make the move to a centralized approach, they need to be aware that the blast radius of “failure” affects more than a single country. To combat this, IT organizations need to have strong procedures and plans in place that help to both avoid these situations and quickly limit the damage if a problem does occur. I view it as three distinct focus areas:
Change control procedures. Strengthen impact controls not just for code changes or operational updates, but also include regulatory changes and configuration changes.
Testing procedures. Step away from just regional scope testing and incorporate global end-to-end synthetic testing, starting from the edge service to all the backend servers and back.
Incident management. Pivot from backend monitoring to a central monitoring and outage single pane view, supported by a global operations center in a follow the sun style model.
A lot has changed in the world of government mandated e-invoicing. Continued investment in technology by government authorities has put regulators in the position to demand greater transparency along with more detailed and real-time reporting. To meet these demands, companies are looking to their IT organizations. The good news is you don’t need to go it alone. Sovos has the expertise to guide you through this global evolution based on our experience working with many of the world’s leading brands.
It’s a good year to be an IT leader. After far too many years of the phrase “do more with less” being the mantra of most organizations when it came to technology spending, things are finally looking up.
According to research firm Gartner, IT spending will reach an estimated $4.5 trillion in 2022. This represents a 5.1% increase over 2021 and is a much-needed boost for businesses in need of technology updates that may have been placed on the backburner due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
IT departments are also eager to switch focus from just keeping things afloat to more long-term projects that will strategically and successfully support the future of work. This assertion is backed by numbers provided by IT management solutions firm Flexera in its State of Tech Spend Report.
When asked where budgets were being allocated to this year, 54% of those surveyed expected increased investment and resources to be applied to technology that makes it easier and more seamless for employees to work from home. Another 42% of those surveyed stated a newfound willingness to move to the cloud to support the realities of a post-pandemic world. Participants in this survey were all executives and high-level managers in IT with significant knowledge of their organizations’ overall IT budgets, weighed in on what to expect in the year to come.
These findings show the level of importance businesses are putting on hybrid and flexible work environments. The likelihood that working from home, at least in some capacity, is here to stay has IT departments rethinking their strategies to be prepared to tackle any challenges that may arise.
The strategies being outlined by IT departments are sound and inline with the world in which we now exist. However, there is another post-pandemic force at work with the potential to derail the best laid plans and devour a vast amount of budget and resources. Government mandated e-invoicing.
If you work as an IT leader at a multinational company, you likely fall into one of the two following categories. One, you’ve been brought into deal with the new realities of real-time oversight and enforcement from regulatory authorities. Or two, you are about to be brought into the fray with your own internal mandate, solve this problem for good.
Why am I so definitive in this declaration? Because I work with some of the biggest brands on the planet and I am witnessing firsthand the impacts these mandates are having on their IT organization.
When it comes to IT projects, most are not reactionary but the result of careful and methodical planning over a long period of time. However, the government is changing the rules here. No longer are projects and upgrades on your timeline. When they implement new laws and mandates it’s either you move quickly to address the issue and make it right or you pay the consequences which can range from hefty fines to even losing your license to operate.
As government mandated e-invoicing laws quickly ramp up around the world, they represent a credible threat to your IT budgets. IT departments must be prepared for the new realities that accompany government mandated e-invoicing. With authorities now in the data stack of your businesses examining transactions in real-time as they traverse your network, you will need a solution that enables you to deliver the information in the format required in real-time.
Bottom line, compliance is no longer a tax issue. IT leaders and other senior leadership must work together to align business functions across the board. IT needs to ensure the resources and tools are in place to meet government mandated obligations, no matter the company’s industry or location.
A failure to address the problem early will only lead to more complex and costly problems down the road that will absorb critical budgets and resources earmarked for other priority projects.
If you aren’t sure where to start in building your strategy, reach out to our experts.
It might not quite be THAT red phone that’s ringing, but rest assured, management is currently dealing with a serious problem, and they are looking at IT to solve it for them.
There are two things that make Boards and C-Suites nervous beyond all else. Risks that have the potential to impact the bottom line and company/brand reputation. This current issue can do both and fast if not dealt with timely.
I’m talking about government tax mandates.
Now you may ask, haven’t government mandates been around for decades? Why the urgency now? Yes, they have been around for a long time, but they have never existed in their current form or had the ability to impact your operations so quickly.
Allow me to explain. In the past, organizations around the world were required to report on transactions after the fact and pay the amounts they were legally obligated to pay. If they didn’t, the government might get around to auditing them a few months or years down the road and assess a penalty if things were found to be out of order. In the grand scheme of things, it was a minor inconvenience for businesses and not a real deterrent for having faulty processes or negligence.
That all began to change a few years back when governments began looking at a tax gap that was growing with no easy solutions to reign it in. Think I’m exaggerating? According to the 2021 report on the VAT Gap issues by the European Commission, in 2019 alone EU countries lost out on €134 billion in Value-Added Tax (VAT) revenues legally owed to them by businesses.
This was a wake-up call to every country that employs the VAT system of taxation anywhere in the world. Not only were they losing out on much needed revenues, but the problem was growing worse. Something needed to be done and done fast or they wouldn’t be able to fund vital programs in their countries.
Fast forward to today. Countries have taken a serious look at the problem and have decided that technology is the answer. They have invested heavily in digitization and have brought their capabilities not only up to par with business, but in many cases, probably for the first time in history, have surpassed the capabilities of private industry to monitor and report on financial transactions.
Today, there is no more reporting after the fact. Governments have set up shop right in your data stack and are reviewing transactions in real-time. And with real-time monitoring has come real-time enforcement. If you are not reporting the information the way the government has mandated, you can expect swift action ranging from expensive fines right up to the revocation of your business license in that country. Both would be devastating shots to your company’s financial outlook and reputation.
This is why there is so much urgency to get IT on board and have a strategy to address the issue on a global basis. Things are only going to get more complicated and the ability to scale systems to meet changing tax mandates in all places you do business has become a top priority for companies.
It’s a new world out there as far as VAT is concerned and this is a lot to come to terms with. If this is new information to you or you are in the process of coming to terms with how it impacts your organization, I’d encourage you to remember and share the following five things with your colleagues:
1. The government is in your data
Real time tax reporting is becoming the new norm for businesses worldwide. Governments are no longer satisfied with receiving data after the fact and are now requiring a permanent presence in your data stack.
2. Government data mandates are taking control away from companies
With government mandated e-invoicing taking the world by storm, businesses are left with little time to prepare for this shift. To remain operational and comply with these mandates, IT must create a strategy to ensure that they are meeting mandate obligations while keeping with the parameters of long-term plans and budgets.
3. Data mandates are moving and evolving quickly
As governments are rapidly moving towards mandated e-invoicing implementation, organizations are now faced with an extremely short window to update their tax codes and mandates. For IT departments, overseeing and executing these changes will become one of their top priorities.
4. Data mandates lack consistency from country to country
For international organizations staying up to date on new processes, technologies and regulations are all essential components to running a successful business. However, the different approaches being adopted by each individual regulatory authority are causing a lot of uncertainty for businesses. The challenge for IT is to create the infrastructure that allows the business to meet the individual mandates of each country’s regulatory authority, while also integrating with one another to provide a real time global dashboard of the organization’s compliance status.
5. Governments have increased the severity and speed of enforcement
Tax authorities are becoming more aggressive than ever to close tax gaps. With the use of digital tools and processes, governments can quickly expedite compliance and track tax fraud effectively. In today’s digital world, penalties can be swifter and more severe than in the past. IT needs to ensure that transaction data is presented to regulatory authorities in the format and time frame they demand.
I’m hopeful this information will give you some things to think about as you work through the changing realities of global tax mandates.
After reading this, if you have questions, feel free to reach out to our experts.
Invoicing in Chile is changing on 1 December 2022. This is when resolution 66 from the Chile Internal Revenue Service comes into force.
This new regulation concerns organisations with foreign currency operations. Banks, stockbrokers, exchange houses and financial institutions are affected. Other intermediaries or entities that carry out foreign currency purchase and sale operations themselves or on behalf of third parties are also included.
All these organisations must issue the following:
Every electronic tax document must consider the specifications described by “Electronic Tax Document Format”. This document is available on the Internal Revenue Service’s website and is regularly updated.
Resolution 66 also contains technical instructions. These establish the details necessary for electronic tax documents that support foreign currency purchase and sale operations.
The resolution states the following must be included:
There are other requirements not listed above, so it’s important to check the guidelines.
This change allows the Internal Revenue Service to receive, validate, and process electronic tax documents. This ensures the operations are accurately reflected and prevents inconsistencies.
In the case of commissions, the taxpayer must issue an invoice or electronic ticket containing all the information indicated by the Technical Annex.
If the document doesn’t include an affected item, consider the following:
An example is when there is no commission.
Likewise, when differences in collections and values are subject to VAT, an electronic credit or debit note must be issued.
The following information must be recorded separately as well:
Are you in financial services or working at a bank with more questions about invoicing in Chile? Speak to our tax experts.
A recent preliminary ruling request to the European Court of Justice, Case C-664/21, NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS, has re-emphasised the importance of collecting documentation when carrying out a zero-rated supply in the EU. The 2017 NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS case involved a company established in Switzerland selling cosmetics products under the Ex Works clause from their warehouse in Slovenia to business customers established in Romania and Croatia. Ex Works (EXW) is an Incoterms rule, a set of definitions outlining the responsibilities of buyers and sellers in international transactions. With Ex Works the transport obligations, costs and risks are the buyer’s responsibility.
The tax administration of the Republic of Slovenia inspected NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS and requested evidence and supporting documentation relating to these supplies to verify that goods had been transported to another EU Member State.
NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS provided copies of the invoices and of the ‘Convention relative au contrat de transport international de marchansises par route’ (CMR) consignment notes. The company failed to provide the evidence requested by tax officers to prove the right to tax exempt the supplies to their customers (delivery notes and other documents mentioned in the CMRs).
The company clarified that the reason for the late submission was that the Hamburg office responsible for supplies to Croatia ceased its activities in August 2018, making it more difficult to find the documents asked for by the tax officers.
Consequently, the Slovenian tax authorities provided the company with an additional VAT assessment notice and ordered it to pay the relevant amount.
In the implementation of the Quick Fix related to the proof of transport in 2020, the European Commission has clarified that where the supplier arranges transportation of the goods, it must be in possession of either:
If the acquirer is responsible for transport of goods (i.e. under the Ex Works clause), they must provide the vendor with a written statement by the 10th of the month following the date of supply that the goods have been transported by the acquirer or on the acquirer’s behalf. The written statement must include the following:
In the case of the Ex Works clause:
If you don’t feel reassured by your customer, change the agreement and Incoterms clause before the supply takes place.
Still have questions about VAT exempt supplies and the Incoterms Ex Works clause? Speak to our tax experts.
Part II of V – Oscar Caicedo, Vice president of product management for VAT Americas, Sovos
Click here to read part I of the series.
Government-mandated e-invoicing laws are making their way across nearly every region of the globe, bringing more stringent mandates and expectations on businesses. Inserted into every aspect of your operation, governments are now an omni-present influence in your data stack reviewing every transaction in real time as it traverses your network. Real-time monitoring has also brought about real-time enforcement that can range in severity from significant fines to shutting your business down completely. All of this has created a new reality for IT leaders who need a strategy to deal with these global changes. We asked our vice president of product management for VAT, Oscar Caicedo to offer his guidance on how this will affect IT departments and how they can best prepare.
Q: With government authorities now in companies’ data and demanding real or near real-time reporting, what impact will this have on IT departments?
Oscar Caicedo: For me, this breaks down into four distinct categories:
1. Business Process Architecture – As regulatory entities become more advanced, it is important to look at the overall functional business process, not only the technical mechanism to report. Many business processes were solidified much before current capabilities were readily available. It is important to revisit the business process to be able to determine the best technical path forward.
2. Source of Truth – With the complex environment IT departments must navigate, you need to redefine the expectations of data/process source of truth. Back-end system ecosystems were not built with current compliance/regulatory needs in mind. In mature markets, where governments continue to advance technical capabilities, it is critical to have a clear strategy to protect against source-of-truth risks. Otherwise, local regulatory entities tend to become the ultimate source of truth.
3. Data Aggregation/Reconciliation – A lack of clarity on the source of truth for each functional business process can lead to major risks. Registering data in real time with local regulators was the initial challenge. The current challenge is ensuring all systems involved are maintained in sync and are always fully harmonized. IT departments must recognize it is now a must-have to navigate the current environment.
4. Master Data – Data in back-end systems was already complicated enough to support in a centralized manner. Once real-time regulatory needs were introduced, the data issue got exponentially larger. Data structures, data libraries and extraction programs are all attempts to solve the problem, but normally these attempts fail due to gaps in understanding what is mandatory vs. optional. Clear guidance on the local needs is critical before deciding on a technical strategy.
Q: To meet government mandates and ensure operations continue uninterrupted, what should IT prioritize? What approach would you recommend?
Oscar Caicedo: I would prioritize a clear regulatory understanding of the markets/geographies in which you operate. This seems obvious, but it is not always the case. Ninety-nine percent of the time when I speak with a large multinational organization, they are not clear on the needs of the local market. Efforts to centralize or take a cohesive approach fail because key IT decision makers didn’t understand the regulation.
In addition, you need to focus on business processes and the data requirements to make them successful and solve the problem end to end. The challenge does not end with registering data. The problem ends when you have the proper visibility, maintenance, support, reconciliation and intelligence to be fully prepared.
Don’t take chances. The regulatory environment is very dynamic, so it is important to ensure the proper testing of all business scenarios needed to operate. Failure to have clear testing scripts can lead to surprises in production environments, which can carry large implications for the operation.
Finally, consolidate as much as possible. This means simplifying end points, communication protocols, data structures, etc. This will allow for a more efficient way to manage the mandated processes in the different jurisdictions.
A lot has changed in the world of government mandated e-invoicing. Continued investment in technology by government authorities has put regulators in the position to demand greater transparency along with more detailed and real-time reporting. To meet these demands, companies are looking to their IT organizations. The good news is you don’t need to go it alone. Sovos has the expertise to guide you through this global evolution based on our experience working with many of the world’s leading brands.
Need help keeping up with global mandates? Get in touch with Sovos’ team of tax experts.
Imagine this scenario.
Your business partner changes the rules on you mid-stream and your ability to conduct business with them is now contingent on changing your entire reporting structure to meet their new demands.
Oh yeah, I should also mention the time frame to meet these demands is extremely tight and if you don’t, you can forget about doing business in their region until you get it right. And if at any point moving forward you fail to live up to these standards, they can fine you or shut you down.
Sound farfetched? It isn’t. It’s exactly what is playing out in major economic markets from Brazil to Italy and parts of Asia and Africa. You see, governments have caught up to businesses when it comes to technology, and in many ways, they have moved past them when it comes to digitization.
It means that governments have now taken on a more proactive approach to reviewing financial transactions and are demanding real-time reporting. As part of that, they have implemented real-time enforcement to ensure that it’s meeting the proper mandated specifications. To accomplish this, they have taken up permanent residence within your data stack. And make no mistake, when it comes to e-invoicing, they are calling the shots.
Governments throughout the world are implementing mandated e-invoicing for its ability to facilitate compliance and track fraud quickly and efficiently. After the fact reporting, which had been the norm until now, was more difficult to enforce and took lengthy and costly audits to recoup what was rightfully owed. Many organizations didn’t take the penalties seriously and would simply set aside some money to deal with these inconveniences as they emerged.
This approach resulted in a tax gap that is continuing to grow. In 2019, the VAT gap of the European Union’s 28 member states was over 134.4 billion euros for all member states combined. This had become unsustainable and unacceptable to many governments and thus a new technology that focused on digitization was made to ensure that all legally owed revenue was being collected timely and in full. Failure to comply would lead to faster and more impactful enforcement measures.
This trend is growing rapidly with countries across the globe adopting new mandates and methodologies for tracking and enforcing the rules. In the next five years nearly every country that employs the VAT system of taxation is expected to update their systems to some degree.
Make no mistake. Due to the demands for real-time information, this is an IT problem, not a tax issue. For multinational companies that do business in dozens of countries, there could be some painful moments along the way if they don’t plan early and develop a sound strategy for each of the locations in which they have operations.
IT should focus on the end goal: implementing a centralized approach to managing these government mandated e-invoicing laws to ensure a globally consistent approach to all digital filings. I can’t overstate the importance of implementation synergies as requirements increase and expand. This is only going to get more complex as time goes on.
And perhaps most importantly, don’t be afraid to ask for help. This is complicated stuff that is changing by the day. This is not the time or the issue to try going it on your own.
Reach out to our experts for more help and information.
Part I of V – Steve Sprague, chief commercial officer, Sovos
Government-mandated e-invoicing laws are making their way across nearly every region of the globe, bringing more stringent mandates and expectations on businesses. Inserted into every aspect of your operation, governments are now an omni-present influence in your data stack reviewing every transaction in real time as it traverses your network. Real-time monitoring has also brought about real-time enforcement that can range in severity from significant fines to shutting your business down completely. All of this has created a new reality for IT leaders who need a strategy to deal with these global changes. We asked our chief commercial officer, Steve Sprague to offer his guidance on how this will affect IT departments and how they can best prepare.
Q: With government authorities now in companies’ data and demanding real or near real-time reporting, what impact will this have on IT departments?
Steve Sprague: CIOs need to make a choice – do they pivot with these changes and adopt a centralized approach to their data, systems, business processes and applications, or do they run a decentralized platform where every country is left to make their own decisions? More than 95% of companies have implemented a decentralized approach as these mandates have grown country by country. However, as Latin America has grown from only three countries instituting these mandates in 2014 to more than 14 countries implementing them now, and with another 30 countries around the globe beginning the process of implementing similar regimes, including economies across Asia and Europe, like France and Germany – a decentralized approach leads to several long-term problems, including:
• Limited visibility outside of the country
• Multiple tools and vendors across different countries
• Disjointed processes with a focus on fulfilling local obligations only
• Solving the “problem at hand” vs. looking at the bigger picture
• Poorly defined roles and responsibilities
• Inconsistent approach to implementing additional countries
Q: To meet government mandates and ensure operations continue uninterrupted, what should IT prioritize? What approach would you recommend?
Steve Sprague: IT should focus on the end goal: implementing a centralized approach to these government mandated e-invoicing laws to ensure a globally consistent approach to all digital filings. There will be cost reduction as the number of vendors and tools are consolidated, and risk will be further mitigated through increased standardization and visibility. I can’t overstate the importance of implementation synergies as requirements increase and expand. This is only going to get more complex as time goes on. The clarity of roles and responsibilities is the other benefit to IT teams, as this approach will lead to clearly defined areas of focus for the team. Finally, alignment of analytics through one data hub will now be possible, providing a centralized dashboard for your global operations.
A lot has changed in the world of government mandated e-invoicing. Continued investment in technology by government authorities has put regulators in the position to demand greater transparency along with more detailed and real-time reporting. To meet these demands, companies are looking to their IT organizations. The good news is you don’t need to go it alone. Sovos has the expertise to guide you through this global evolution based on our experience working with many of the world’s leading brands.
Need help keeping up with global mandates? Get in touch with Sovos’ team of tax experts.
France is implementing a decentralised continuous transaction control (CTC) system where domestic B2B e-invoicing constitutes the foundation of the system, adding e-reporting requirements for data relating to B2C and cross-border B2B transactions (sales and purchases).
Under this upcoming regime, data or invoices can be directly sent to the Invoicing Public Portal ‘PPF’ (Portail Public de Facturation, so far known as Chorus Pro) or to a Partner Dematerialization Platform ‘PDP’ (Plateformes de Dématerialisation Partenaires). In addition, there are also Dematerializing Operators (Operateurs de dématérialisation) that are connected to either the PPF or a PDP.
Requirements for these portal and platforms have been published.
The Ministry of Economy published Decree No. 2022-1299 and Order of 7 October 2022 on the generalisation of e-invoicing in transactions between taxable persons for VAT and the transmission of transaction data (together known as ‘new legislation’), providing long-awaited details for PDP operators and PPF.
The new legislation introduces rules concerning the application process for PDP operators. Although French establishment isn’t required, PDP operators must fulfill a number of requirements, such as operating their IT systems in the EU.
France is implementing a model where third-party service providers are authorised to transmit invoices between the transacting parties. With the mandatory use of the PPF or PDPs for exchanging e-invoices, trading parties cannot exchange invoices between them directly. Therefore, PDPs must be able to receive and send invoices in structured formats, whether the ones supported by the PPF (CII, UBL, or FACTUR-X) or any other required by their clients. Also, to ensure interoperability, PDPs are expected to connect with at least one other PDP. Besides this requirement, it’s stated by the new decree that PDPs must be able to send e-invoices to PDPs chosen by their recipients which implies a complete interoperability between PDPs.
It was previously announced that taxpayers could submit PDF invoices for a transitional period. The new legislation outlines the transitional period as until the end of 2027. During this period PDPs and PPF must be able to convert the PDF into one of the structured formats.
The new legislation also provides information about the content of e-invoices, which has new mandatory fields, and the content of transaction and payment data to be transmitted to the tax authority.
It also announced frequencies and dates of data transmission. Deadlines for transaction and payment data transmission are based on the tax regimes of taxpayers. For example, taxpayers subject to the normal monthly regime should transmit payment data within ten days after the end of the month.
With the aim of having traceability over documents, the lifecycle statuses of the domestic B2B e-invoices are exchanged between the parties and transmitted to the PPF. Lifecycle statuses that are mandatory (“Deposited”, “Rejected”, “Refused” and “Payment Received”) are listed in the new legislation.
Further details regarding the Central Directory, which consists of data to properly identify the recipient of the e-invoice and its platform, are provided within the Order.
PDP operator candidates can apply for registration as of Spring 2023 (precise date still to be confirmed), instead of September 2023 as previously set. From January 2024, a six-month test run is expected to be conducted for enterprises and PDPs before the implementation in July 2024.
Still have questions about France’s upcoming continuous transaction control mandate? Get in touch with our tax experts.
Update: 2 March 2023 by Kelly Muniz
Postponement of EFD-REINF Deadline for Events Referring to Withholding IRPF, CSLL, PIS and COFINS
The publishing of Normative Instruction RFB n. 2.133, of 27 February 2023 postpones the deadline of the obligation to submit EFD-REINF (Digital Fiscal Record of Withholdings and Other Fiscal Information) events related to withholding:
This postponement refers to taxpayers who are currently obliged to submit the DIRF (Withholding Income Tax Return) and were required to comply with the EFD-REINF obligation from March 2023.
The obligation to submit the EFD-REINF for these taxpayers will now begin from 8:00 am on 21 September 2023, in relation to taxable events that occur from 1 September 2023.
The postponement is to allow time for taxpayers to carry out adjustments to their computerised systems and for the Brazilian Federal Revenue Agency to finalise the necessary tests to guarantee the consistency of the rules for validating the information captured in the record.
Need to discuss how Brazil’s EFD-REINF changes affect your business? Speak to our tax experts.
Update: 25 October 2022 by Kelly Muniz
Since 2007, the Brazilian government has imprinted high efforts in digitizing the relations between revenue offices and taxpayers, by introducing electronic instruments to ensure taxpayers provide accurate and timely information on the collection of the various existent taxes, duties, charges, and contributions.
One result of such efforts was the creation of the Public Digital Bookkeeping System (Sistema Público de Escrituração Digital) or SPED. This platform is where taxpayers submit fiscal and accounting information using different electronic instruments referred to as SPED modules.
There are significant upcoming changes to one of the modules, the Digital Fiscal Record of Withholdings and Other Fiscal Information (Escrituração Fiscal Digital de Retenções e Outras Informações Fiscais), known as EFD-REINF.
The latest regulatory updates within this module concern steps towards the substitution of other records by the EFD-REINF, with important changes taking place in 2023.
In August 2022 version 2.1.1 of the EFD-REINF layout was introduced, expanding the reach of events covered by the record. The current 1.5.1 version is valid until February 2023 and from March 2023 layout version 2.1.1 must be used.
The main change is the inclusion of the ‘R-4000’ series events. These events cover the registration of withholdings on income tax (IR), Social Contribution on Net Income (CSLL), Social Integration Program (PIS), and Contribution to the Financing of Social Security (COFINS), among other fiscal contributions.
Another relevant change is the removal of the requirement to submit the EFD-REINF ‘without movement’. Previously, only a certain group was permitted for this exemption if they didn’t generate any records to be reported in the respective declaration period but this has now been expanded to all taxpayers in scope of the EFD-REINF.
Earlier this year, RFB Normative Instruction n. 2.096 of 2022 postponed mandatory submission of the EFD-REINF for the fourth and last group of taxpayers: entities that are part of the ‘Public Administration’ and entities classified as ‘International Organisations and Other Extraterritorial Institutions’. Since August 2022 this group is now obliged to comply.
However, the same regulation established that from 1 March 2023 taxpayers currently obliged to submit the DIRF (Withholding Income Tax Return) will be required to comply with the EFD-REINF obligation. This is an extensive list found in article 2 of RFB Normative Instruction n. 1.990 of 2020, which includes individuals and legal entities that have paid or credited income for which Withholding Income Tax (IRRF) has been withheld and certain entities of the Federal Public Administration, among others.
Finally, the annual submission of the DIRF will be abolished regarding events that occur from 1 January 2024, meaning that taxpayers won’t be required to submit it in 2025. Until then, the information declared in the DIRF and EFD-REINF will coexist.
Keeping up with the mosaic of fiscal requirements within the federal, state, and municipal levels in Brazil normally requires engaging the services of an expert or risk incurring high penalties. Modifications to fiscal obligations are implemented regularly in the country, which means companies must ensure readiness to comply.
Still have questions about Brazil’s EFD-REINF? Speak to our tax experts.
Update: 9 July 2018 by Ramón Frias
A complement to eSocial (which covers tax withholdings on wages), EFD-REINF reports withholdings made to individuals and corporations resulting from the application of the income tax and social security taxes (CSLL, INSS COFINS, PIS/PASEP). It also applies to payments received by sport associations and revenues generated by sport events.
EFD-REINF replaces reporting obligations that the Brazilian taxpayers have to comply with under the EFD-Contribucoes.
There are three groups of reports, or “events,” that must be submitted to the tax administration:
The EFD- REINF is being rolled out in three stages.
Events that are incomplete, or reported with errors, will a face fines totaling 3% of the amount involved, with a minimum of $100 Real in the case of legal entities, and half of the above amounts when the taxpayer is an individual. Fines for late reports will range between from $500 Real to $1,500 Real per month or fraction of month.
To learn more about other changes impacting companies operating in Brazil and throughout Latin America, download the Definitive Guide to Error-Free Compliance in Latin America.
For the UK and other non-EU businesses it’s vital to determine the importer of the goods into the EU as this will impact the VAT treatment.
For goods under €150 there are simplified options such as the Import One Stop Shop (IOSS) or special arrangements through the postal operator. However, when supplying goods over €150, businesses need to consider how they want to import the goods.
One option is for businesses to deliver on a Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) basis and be the importer of the goods into the EU. This improves the customer experience for B2C transactions but creates a liability to be registered in the county of import and to charge local VAT, along with additional compliance requirements. If goods are moved from that country to other EU countries, then depending on the supply chain, the One Stop Shop (OSS) could be used to avoid further VAT registration requirements.
Due to increased compliance costs many businesses have chosen not to be the importer and pass this obligation to the end customer. If a business chooses this route, options are still available.
The business could simply place the full obligation on the customer., The customer would be sent a payment request for the VAT and any duty by the carrier before delivery., There could also be a handling fee passed on to the customer. Once paid the goods would be delivered This approach doesn’t provide the best customer experience.
This is why many businesses have opted for a ’landed cost method’ offered by many couriers. The customer is still the importer on the import documentation, but the business collects the VAT and duty from the customer at the time of sale and settles the carrier’s invoice on their behalf. In theory, this avoids the need for the business to register in the EU and still offers the customer a seamless experience. However, this raises the question: is the customer actually the importer?
Some tax authorities are beginning to take a different view of arrangements for goods with a value above €150 where goods are imported directly into the Member State of delivery. A law change on 1 July 2021 included the concept “where the supplier intervenes indirectly in the transport or dispatch of the goods”. This is to counter arrangements that allowed the seller to argue they were not distance selling but making a local sale, so only had to account for VAT in the Member State of dispatch of the goods.
Following the law change some tax authorities are arguing this concept means if a seller sells to a private individual in their country and the seller arranges for the goods to be delivered from a non-EU country and customs cleared in their EU Member State, the place of supply is the Member State as the supplier has indirectly intervened in the transport.
As a result, the supplier must register and account for VAT in the Member State even if the customer is the importer of the goods. This argument could result in double taxation and can create additional compliance obligations along with tax authority audits – all of which add additional costs and time for businesses.
It’s important that businesses adopting a method where the customer is the importer put correct arrangements in place. This includes ensuring website terms and conditions reflect the fact the customer is the importer and giving the company the power to appoint a customs declarant on their behalf. It’s also important that customs documentation is completed correctly. Avoiding terms such as DDP on the website is also key as this implies that the business is the importer.
For help with EU import queries or if your company needs VAT compliance assistance get in touch to speak with one of our tax experts.
It seems such a short time since HMRC sent a reminder letter in March 2022 recalling the upcoming changes to the UK’s customs systems and explaining what to do to prepare for these changes.
With the deadline rapidly approaching, here’s a brief recap.
The Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) system, which is now nearly 30 years old (it was introduced in 1994), will close in two phases:
The Customs Declaration Service will serve as the UK’s single customs platform, with all businesses needing to declare all imported and exported goods through the Customs Declaration Service (CDS) after 31 March 2023.
As mentioned on the HMRC website, the Customs Declaration Service toolkit gives traders access to the many benefits of the upcoming changes. In summary:
To be able to use CDS and import goods into the UK from 1 October 2022 and to export from 1 April 2023, businesses are required to have the following:
Want to know more about how changes to the UK’s customs systems will impact your business and its compliance? Contact us to find out more.
In Italy, the discipline of transfer pricing states that in intra-group transactions between entities from different countries, where one is resident in Italy, transactions must take place on an arm’s length basis. In other words, transactions are based on freely competitive prices and under comparable circumstances.
Companies carefully treat the transfer pricing adjustments from a corporate income tax perspective. However, less attention is paid from a VAT perspective.
It’s worth mentioning that in most cases, the transfer price adjustments are profitability adjustments (rather than price) of the transactions carried out between associated companies.
However, treating the transfer pricing adjustments as outside the scope of VAT might cause problems in case of a tax authority audit and re-qualification of the transactions.
The issue of transfer pricing adjustments for VAT purposes is not expressly regulated by the Italian legislator, other EU Member State legislators or from an EU VAT legislative point of view. In the absence of an ad hoc provision, reference is made to EU and local legislation, and private and public rulings on a case-by-case analysis.
Regarding public rulings, Italian tax authorities published several responses in 2021.
With the last response to ruling no. 884 of 30 December 2021, inspired by EU Commission Working Paper n. 923 and VAT Expert Group document n. 071, Italian tax authorities clarified that to establish whether transfer pricing adjustments represent the consideration for a transaction relevant for VAT:
In the 30 December 2021 ruling (no. 884), Italian tax authorities confirmed the adjustments in question were outside the scope of VAT following the transfer pricing adjustments. It stated for subsidiaries “the recognition of an extra cost aimed at lowering their operating margin“, wasn’t “directly related to the original supplies of finished products“.
The same outcome didn’t apply to ruling no. 529 of August 6, 2021.
In this case, at the time of the sale of the goods, the seller applied a provisional price.
That provisional price was then subject to adjustment on a quarterly basis, through the so-called “Profit True Up“. The result could consist either of a claim by the transferor against the transferee or, conversely, transferor’s debt.
In this specific case, Italian tax authorities found a “direct link between the sums determined in the final balance and the supplies” and concluded by determining the relevance of the transfer price adjustments made by the taxpayer for VAT purposes.
Whether or not your business is operating in Italy, the above shows how important the potential VAT implications of transfer pricing adjustments are and the confusion for businesses on how to proceed in different scenarios.
At Sovos we’ve seen more local tax authority audits focused on clarifying if the treatment is valid from a corporate income tax and a VAT perspective.
After a review of the contracts and agreements between the companies and subsidiaries involved, it’s essential to understand whether the transfer pricing adjustments are:
Speak to our team if you have questions about the latest approach from a VAT perspective on transfer pricing adjustments in Italy, the EU and the UK and the potential solutions to mitigate any risk of audit and penalties.
The Italian Customs Authorities recently updated their national import system by applying the new European Union Customs Data Model (EUCDM). These new changes came into effect on 9 June 2022.
According to the new procedure, the old model of paper import declarations has been abolished. The import declarations are now transmitted to the Italian Customs Authorities’ information system with a digital signature.
The acceptance of a customs declaration is notified to the economic operator (that can be the importer, the Customs Agent, etc.) through a Master Reference Number (MRN), an alphanumeric string of 18 characters.
The old IM message (telematic track to be submitted at the time of the import to the Italian Customs Authorities through the Customs Telematic Service (i.e. Servizio telematico doganale (STD)) has been replaced by the following paths as defined by EU legislation:
At the time of the release of the goods, Italian Customs Authorities make available the “summary statement for accounting purposes of the customs declaration” (prospetto di riepilogo ai fini contabili della dichiarazione doganale). The summary includes all data necessary to detect customs duties, import VAT and any other charges due.
The summary mentioned above is made available to the importer and the declarant/representative in the reserved area of the single portal of Italian Customs Authorities through the “Document management – customs declarations” service.
We recommend that importers contact their Customs Agent to receive a copy of this summary for their accounting purposes.
As per Italian VAT Law, possessing a Single Administrative Document (SAD) is needed to exercise the right to recover import VAT in Italy. As the SAD is now unavailable, Italian Customs Authorities, in agreement with the Italian Revenue Agency, agreed that the new accounting summary is sufficient to allow the importer to exercise the right to recover the import VAT.
Therefore, the new accounting summary is needed to exercise your right to recover the import VAT paid to the Italian tax authorities.
Moreover, the right to recover import VAT is exercised only once the summary is reported in the Purchase VAT Ledger as per art. 25 of Italian VAT Law.
Finally, the import document must be included in your quarterly VAT return and your annual VAT return which must mirror your Italian VAT Ledgers.
To ensure your import VAT is not lost, we recommend considering that the last day to recover the import VAT, related to an import of goods carried out in 2022, is 30 April 2023.
In addition to the Summary Prospetto di riepilogo ai fini contabili della dichiarazione doganale, discussed above, economic operators will be able to receive:
Italian Customs Authorities advise customs operators to provide the Prospetto di svincolo to transporters as proof of the fulfilment of customs formalities in the case of checks.
Speak to our team if you have any questions about the latest Italian importing requirements and their impact on your business’s compliance.
On 22 July, the EU Commission opened four new infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom for allegedly breaching the 2021 Northern Ireland Protocol on conditions related to customs requirements, excise tax and VAT. The EU has brought seven proceedings against the UK over the Protocol since 2021.
Following the UK’s departure from the EU in 2020, the parties agreed that customs checkpoints on the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland could lead to political instability. The Protocol was an attempt to avoid border posts between the two countries.
Instead, the Protocol ensures customs checks are done in Northern Irish ports before goods are released into the Republic of Ireland. This process effectively created a customs border on the Irish Sea. In addition, the Protocol allows Northern Ireland to follow EU rules on product standards and VAT rules related to goods.
The Protocol has been controversial in the UK, as it creates special rules for Northern Ireland that don’t apply in England, Scotland or Wales. Members of the UK’s governing Conservative Party – including Liz Truss, a frontrunner to replace Boris Johnson as UK Prime Minister – have recently introduced a Northern Ireland Protocol Bill that would allow the UK to amend the terms of the Protocol.
Among other things, the draft legislation seeks to remove dispute settlement from the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, authorises “green [fast track] channels” for goods staying within the UK, and allows for UK-wide policies on VAT. Proponents of the bill claim it is necessary to protect the “essential interest” of peace in Northern Ireland.
However, European Union Representatives have condemned this draft legislation as a potential violation of international law. In its most recent infringement proceedings, the EU alleges that the UK has not substantively implemented parts of the Protocol at all.
In particular, the EU claims that:
The last point is particularly interesting for VAT purposes, as the IOSS scheme is a signature piece of the EU’s “VAT in the Digital Age” initiative.
At the time of writing the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill has not yet been adopted by the UK Parliament. It awaits review in the House of Lords. The UK and the EU have stated that further negotiations over the Protocol would be the preferred option. The parties, however, remain far apart on the details.
The EU has set out two months for the UK to respond to the infringement action. Failing any new agreements, the action could lead to possible fines and/or trading sanctions between the parties. Taxpayers conducting cross-border trade between the UK and EU should ensure they stay on top of future developments.
Need more information on IOSS and how it could impact your business’s compliance? Get in touch with our team.
The Philippines continuous transaction controls (CTC) Electronic Invoicing/Receipting System (EIS) has been officially kicked off for the 100 large taxpayers selected by the government to inaugurate the mandate. Although taxpayers were still struggling to meet the new e-invoicing system’s technical requirements just before the go-live date, the Philippines upheld its planned deadline and went live with this pilot on 1 July 2022.
The Philippines roll-out has once again highlighted the challenges of complying with new mandates and shown that readiness is vital.
Together with one of the six initial pilot companies, which started testing early this year, Sovos has developed the first software solution to obtain approval by the EIS to operate e-invoice transmission through the government’s transmission platform. Sovos’ solution is up and running in the Philippines.
One day before the EIS go-live, the Philippines tax authority, BIR (Bureau of Internal Revenue), published Revenue Regulations n. 6-2022, 8-2022, and 9-2022, containing the new system’s policies and guidelines and documenting the rules and procedures adopted by the EIS.
While the regulations do not represent news for pilot taxpayers who have successfully implemented their CTC e-invoice reporting systems, the same might not be accurate for those preparing to comply with the new mandate. The legislation officially establishes the country’s e-invoice/receipt issuance and reporting initiative, first introduced in 2018 by the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Act (TRAIN), and documents relevant information.
As of 1 July 2022, 100 selected pilot taxpayers have been obliged to issue and transmit e-invoices and e-receipts through the EIS. The BIR is planning a phased roll-out for other taxpayers within the scope of the mandate, starting in 2023, but no official calendar has been announced yet.
Taxpayers covered by the mandate are:
The mandate requires electronic issuance of invoices (B2B), receipts (B2C), debit and credit notes and transmission through the EIS platform in near real-time, that is, in up to three (3) calendar days counted from issuance date. Documents must be transmitted using the JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) file format.
Issuance and transmission can be done through the EIS taxpayer portal or using API (Application Programming Interface), in which taxpayers must develop a Sales Data Transmission System and secure certification before operating through the EIS. This entails the application for the EIS Certification and a Permit to Transmit (PTT) by submitting documentation with detailed information about the taxpayer’s system.
Although the regulations state that the submission of printed invoices and receipts is no longer required for taxpayers operating under the EIS, archiving requirements have not been modified. This means that during the 10-year archiving period, taxpayers must retain hard copies of transmitted documents for the first five (5) years, after which exclusive electronic storage is allowed for the remaining time.
Additionally, the legislation states that only the invoices successfully transmitted through the EIS will be accepted for VAT deduction purposes.
Many of the 100 pilot taxpayers struggled to comply with the country’s deadline. For this reason, the EIS has allowed alternations to the deadline for certain taxpayers, provided they submit a Sworn Statement detailing the reasons why they are not able to meet the requirement on time and a schedule with the date they intend to comply by, which are subject to the EIS’ approval.
Regarding non-compliance, the regulations state that the tax authority shall impose a penalty for delayed or non-transmission of e-invoices/receipts to the EIS and that unreported sales will be subject to further investigation.
After the pilot program kick-off and legally establishing the CTC framework, the government plans to gradually roll out the mandate to all taxpayers included in the scope in 2023. However, taxpayers who are not in the mandatory scope of the EIS may already opt to enrol in the system and be ready to comply beforehand.
Sovos was the first software provider to become certified, in conjunction with one of the pilot taxpayers, to transmit through the EIS, and is ready to comply with the Philippines CTC e-invoice reporting. Our powerful software combined with our extensive knowledge of the Philippines tax landscape helps companies solve tax for good.
Need to ensure compliance with the latest e-invoicing requirements in the Philippines? Speak with a member of Sovos’ team of tax experts
The EU and the UK use the Economic Operators Registration and Identification System (EORI) to identify traders.
Businesses and people wishing to trade in the EU and the UK must use the EORI number as an identification number in all customs procedures when exchanging information with customs administrations. The EU has one standard identification number across the EU, while the UK requires a separate GB EORI number for trade in the UK post-Brexit.
The purpose of having one standard ID in the EU is that it creates efficiency for both traders and the customs authorities. However, it’s vital to ensure all aspects of the system are considered.
The primary need for an EORI number is to be able to lodge a customs declaration for both imports and exports. Guidance is that a trader should obtain an EORI number in the first country of import or export. Carriers will also require an EORI number.
The EORI number exists in two parts:
The UK has also adopted this format, with both GB EORI numbers for trade into Great Britain (GB) and an XI EORI number for trade via the Northern Ireland protocol. The UK and EU have online databases where it is possible to check the status of an EORI number.
Since the UK left the EU, it is now required to have a separate GB EORI number to import and export from GB. This number will not be valid in the EU. However, should businesses be trading from Northern Ireland, then due to the Northern Ireland protocol, it is possible to apply for an XI EORI number to import into the EU.
Initially, after the introduction of the XI prefix, there were several reported issues. They included tax authorities being unable to recognise XI EORI numbers or link them to existing EU VAT numbers. Often it is the case that businesses have found it simpler to cancel an XI EORI number and apply for an EU EORI number in a Member State, particularly if that Member State is the main point of entry for imports into the EU.
Some of the most common issues we see at Sovos include:
Sovos provides an EORI registration service for traders who must apply for an EORI number. We can also link any existing EU VAT numbers to the EORI to ensure that customs declarations can be logged correctly, ensuring a smooth process and avoiding delays. You can find more information about EU VAT and the EU VAT e-commerce package here.
Contact us if you need help with VAT compliance.
According to European Customs Law, non-EU established businesses must appoint a representative for customs purposes when importing goods into the EU. In particular, the Union Customs Code establishes that non-EU resident businesses must appoint an indirect representative.
At the end of the Brexit transitionary period, many UK businesses suddenly needed to appoint an indirect representative to clear goods into the EU. In this article, we will look in further detail at this requirement’s challenges.
Indirect representation implies that agents are jointly and severally liable for any customs debt (import or export duties), which is why it’s harder for businesses to find freight companies and customs brokers willing to act on their behalf than for direct representation imports.
The conditions to be an indirect representative are that the customs agent must have a registered office or permanent establishment in the EU. An agent would require a Power of Attorney that enables them to act for the company. The main characteristic of indirect representation is that the agent will act in their own name but on behalf of the company that appointed them, essentially transferring the rights and obligations of customs procedures to the representative.
On the other hand, agents act in the name and on behalf of the company in direct representation.
In addition to the customs implications, agents acting as the importer of record or declarant may also be considered liable for complying with regulatory requirements. For example, any error in the declarations (ex. Article 77 paragraph 3 Union Customs Code (UCC), if the agent was aware of incorrect information or if they “should have known better”).
The European Court of Justice recently expressed its opinion on this matter with the ruling on the case C-714/20, UI Srl. This ruling determined that the indirect representative is jointly and severally liable from a customs law perspective, but not for VAT (contrary to a previous interpretation of Article 77 (3) UCC). The court specified that it’s up to the Member States to expressly determine if other persons, such as indirect representatives, may be considered jointly and severally liable for VAT of their importer clients. However, according to the principle of legal certainty, this should be clearly expressed in the local legislation before courts can enforce said responsibility.
For these options, each alternative solution will have economic and administrative implications to be considered. It is recommended that businesses carefully review their overall strategy before deciding what can be adjusted to comply with customs formalities.
Contact Sovos’ team of VAT experts for help with meeting VAT compliance obligations.