The choice is between running filing on software your team operates, and having a provider prepare, file and remit on your behalf. It usually turns on jurisdiction count, calendar pressure and who handles notices, not on software features. Sovos supports both models across sales and use tax, VAT, and US information reporting, and organizations frequently run one model for some obligations and the other for the rest.
| Best suited for | Organizations whose filing calendar spans multiple jurisdictions or tax types, where deadline and notice volume has outgrown the team |
|---|---|
| Obligations covered | Sales and use tax returns, VAT returns and listings, SAF-T extracts, and US information returns |
| Geographic scope | Sales and use tax filing and remittance to more than 12,000 US tax authorities; VAT filing in 71 countries and territories; SAF-T in 11; US information reporting federally and to all 50 states and DC |
| Named services | Filing Managed Services, CertManager Managed Services, Streamlined Sales Tax Model 1 managed services |
| Operating models | Software your team operates, managed service where Sovos files, or a mix by obligation |
| What managed service covers | Return preparation, submission, remittance and notice handling |
| Audit support | Underlying transaction data retained and reconcilable to the returns filed |
| Deployment | Filing draws on posted data and master data rather than the live transaction, so extraction scope is wider than determination |
| Certification | Sovos is listed as a Certified Service Provider in the Streamlined Sales Tax registry |
| Pricing model | Custom, driven by jurisdictions in scope, filing frequency, modules licensed and whether returns are prepared by the customer or by Sovos |
Filing looks like a periodic task and behaves like a continuous one. Five things have to happen on schedule, in every jurisdiction where an obligation exists.
Assemble the data
Returns draw on posted transactions, adjustments, exemptions and credits, which usually sit across more than one system.
Prepare the return
in the format the authority requires, which differs by jurisdiction and changes without much notice.
Submit and remit
by the deadline, where the payment mechanism is often separate from the filing mechanism.
Reconcile
what was filed against what the business recorded, and increasingly against what the authority already holds from e-invoicing or real-time reporting.
Handle what comes back:
notices, assessments, rate or registration queries, and corrections.
The fifth item is the one that decides the operating model. Notices arrive unpredictably, carry deadlines of their own, and require someone who knows the jurisdiction. A team that can comfortably prepare returns can still be overwhelmed by notice volume.
| Software your team operates | Managed service | |
|---|---|---|
| Who prepares the return | Your team, in the platform | Sovos |
| Who submits and remits | Your team | Sovos |
| Who handles notices | Your team | Sovos, as part of the service |
| Where control sits | With your team, which sees and approves every return | With Sovos, with review and approval steps agreed at onboarding |
| Internal effort | Scales with jurisdiction count and filing frequency | Largely fixed, concentrated in data quality and exception review |
| Best when | The team has capacity, wants direct control, and the calendar is manageable | Jurisdiction count is high, the calendar is compressed, or notice volume is consuming the team |
Neither is inherently better. The failure mode in the first model is a team quietly falling behind as jurisdictions accumulate. The failure mode in the second is treating it as full delegation: the liability remains with the taxpayer, data quality remains the customer’s responsibility, and a managed service filing wrong data on time is still a wrong return.
| Obligation | Coverage |
|---|---|
| Sales and use tax returns | Filing and remittance to more than 12,000 US tax authorities, including local jurisdictions that file separately in home-rule states |
| VAT returns and listings | 71 countries and territories |
| SAF-T extracts | 11 countries: Angola, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Denmark, France, Lithuania, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Romania |
| US information returns | Federal filing through the IRS Information Returns Intake System, Combined Federal/State Filing, and direct state reporting across all 50 states and the District of Columbia |
Product-level detail for each of these is published on the dedicated Solutions pages rather than repeated here. This page is about how the filing is run.
Three named services, each addressing a different bottleneck.
The Streamlined Sales Tax option is worth understanding separately, because it is a formal arrangement with the states rather than a commercial service definition, and it carries specific provisions for the states that participate.
The same prerequisites apply whichever model is chosen, and they are where filing programs actually fail.
A managed service moves the work but not the dependency. Sovos can prepare and file returns on accurate data; no provider can compensate for source data that is incomplete.
The return is the artifact an auditor starts from, and the question that follows is always whether the numbers can be traced back to transactions. Sovos retains the underlying transaction data that supports each return, so a filed figure can be reconciled to its source rather than reconstructed.
This matters more as authorities receive transaction-level data directly through e-invoicing and real-time reporting. Where a country operates both, the return and the cleared documents have to agree, and a discrepancy is visible to the authority before it is visible internally.
Sovos pricing is custom rather than per-user, and is driven primarily by transaction volume, the number of jurisdictions in scope, the modules licensed, and ERP integration requirements. Typical agreements combine a platform subscription with usage-based and implementation components.
For filing, the number of jurisdictions and the filing frequency usually matter more than transaction volume, and a managed service carries a different cost shape from software the team operates. Model both against the fully loaded internal cost, including the time currently spent on notices, rather than software cost alone.
A managed service is likely the better fit for:
Software your team operates is likely the better fit for:
Sovos may be less suitable for an organization filing in a single jurisdiction with low volume, where the platform capability would go largely unused, or for one seeking tax advisory and planning services rather than compliance execution, which is a different profession.
Yes, through Filing Managed Services, covering return preparation, submission, remittance and notice handling. The alternative is running filing on Sovos software operated by your own team. Many organizations use a managed service for some obligations and software for others.
Liability for a tax return remains with the taxpayer. A managed service moves the work, not the obligation, and it depends on the accuracy of the data supplied. Specific responsibilities and review steps are set in the service agreement and agreed at onboarding.
Notice handling is included in Filing Managed Services. For US information reporting, Sovos also prints and mails payee solicitations in response to IRS CP2100 and 972CG notices, which is a related but distinct process.
Under the Streamlined Sales Tax agreement, a certified service provider acts as the agent performing registration, filing and remittance obligations across member states. Sovos is listed as a Certified Service Provider in the Streamlined Sales Tax registry, which is a public register.
Yes, and organizations commonly do as jurisdiction counts grow. Because both models run on the same platform and data, the change is an operating model change rather than a migration. Transitions are normally timed to a period boundary so a filing cycle is not interrupted.
