COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL assessing the invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax
Date: 2020-02-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: VAT, administrative formalities, approximation of laws, electronic document, invoicing, national implementing measure, single market, small and medium-sized enterprises, tax harmonisation, tax offence

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.2.2020  SWD(2020) 29 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL assessing the invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax {COM(2020) 47 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 

1.1. 

PURPOSE AND SCOPE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 

2.1. 
2.2. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 
BASELINE AND POINTS OF COMPARISON --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 

3.1. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT SITUATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 
e-Invoicing ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 
3.1.1. 
3.1.2. 
Invoicing issuance and content -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 
3.1.3.  Other provisions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 
3.1.4.  Archiving ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 

4.  METHOD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 

4.1. 
4.2. 

SHORT DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11 
DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11 
Legal mapping exercise ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 
4.2.1. 
4.2.2.  Business survey -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 
Targeted consultations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 
4.2.3. 
The Public Consultation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 
4.2.4. 

5. 

ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ------------------------------------------------- 12 

5.1.1 
5.1.2 
5.1.3 
5.1.4 
5.1.5 

5.1  RELEVANCE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 
The opinion of the stakeholders on the objectives of the Directive -------------------------------- 12 
E-invoicing rules: positive impacts and challenges ----------------------------------------------------- 13 
Invoicing rules ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 
Specific invoicing regimes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 
Other issues analysed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16 
5.2  EFFECTIVENESS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 
The uptake of e-invoicing ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 
The reduction of administrative burdens on businesses ---------------------------------------------- 18 
Functioning of the Internal Market ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 
SME promotion -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 
Tax control and VAT fraud ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 21 
5.3  EFFICIENCY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 22 
The change in the administrative burdens generated by the provisions on e-invoicing ------ 22 
Administrative burdens and savings ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 24 
Regulatory costs and costs savings ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 
5.4  COHERENCE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 

5.2.1 
5.2.2 
5.2.3 
5.2.4 
5.2.5 

5.3.1 
5.3.2 
5.3.3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.4.1 
5.4.2 
5.4.3 

Coherence with other pieces of EU legislation ---------------------------------------------------------- 27 
Coherence with other EU initiatives in the field of invoicing ---------------------------------------- 30 
Coherence with other EU strategies------------------------------------------------------------------------ 31 
5.5  EU ADDED VALUE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32 
Simplification of e-invoicing and invoicing rules -------------------------------------------------------- 32 
Reduction of regulatory fragmentation ------------------------------------------------------------------- 33 
Increased uptake of cash accounting ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 33 

5.5.1 
5.5.2 
5.5.3 

6. 

CONCLUSION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34 

6.1  THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE DIRECTIVE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 34 
6.2  OTHER ISSUES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 

FAMILIARISATION INTERVIEWS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37 
TARGETED CONSULTATION IN FIELDWORK MEMBER STATES ------------------------------------------------------------- 37 
TARGETED CONSULTATION – E-MAIL SURVEY OF TAX AUTHORITIES ---------------------------------------------------- 39 
TARGETED CONSULTATION – E-MAIL SURVEY OF VAT PRACTITIONERS ------------------------------------------------- 40 
A PUBLIC CONSULTATION ADDRESSED TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC -------------------------- 40 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47 

APPLICATION OF THE STANDARD COST MODEL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47 

ANNEX 4: INVOICING ISSUANCE AND CONTENT – IMPLEMENTATION BY MEMBER STATES ---------------- 53 

ANNEX 5: CASH ACCOUNTING SCHEME – IMPLEMENTATION BY MEMBER STATES---------------------------- 57 

ANNEX 6: ARCHIVING – SITUATION IN THE MEMBER STATES -------------------------------------------------------- 58 

ANNEX 7: EVALUATION MATRIX ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59 

 
 
Glossary 

Business-As-Usual 
Business Controls that create a reliable Audit Trail 
Billion 
Business-to-Business 
Business-to-Customer 
Business-to-Government 

BAU 
BCAT 
Bn 
B2B 
B2C 
B2G 
DG TAXUD  Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union 
EC 
ECB 
EDI 
eIDAS 
EMSFEI 
EO 
ERP 
EU 
EUR 
GDPR 
IO 
I&A 
MNC 
MS 
MTIC 
OCR 
OECD 
PC 
PDF 
PI 
p.p. 
QES 
SID 
SME 
SP 
TA 
VAT 
VTTL 
VP 
XML 

European Commission 
European Central Bank 
Electronic Data Interchange 
electronic IDentification, Authentication and trust Services 
European Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Electronic Invoicing 
Economic Operator 
Enterprise Resource Planning 
European Union 
Euro 
General Data Protection Regulation 
Issuance of an Invoice 
Integrity and Authenticity 
Multinational Corporation 
Member State(s) 
Missing Trader Intra Community 
Optical Character Recognition 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
Public Consultation 
Portable Document Format 
Private Individuals 
Percentage Points 
Qualified Electronic Signature 
Second Invoicing Directive (Directive 2010/45/EU) 
Small and Medium-sized Enterprise 
Service Provider 
Tax Authority 
Value Added Tax 
VAT Total Tax Liability 
VAT Practitioner 
Extensible Markup Language 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Purpose and scope 

This Staff Working Document sets out the results of the evaluation of the invoicing rules 
laid down in Directive 2006/112/EC ('the VAT Directive'). Article 237 of this Directive 
requires  the  Commission  to  present  an  overall  assessment  report,  based  on  an 
independent economic study, on the impact of the invoicing rules introduced by Directive 
2010/45/EU ('Second Invoicing Directive') and applicable since 1 January 2013, notably 
the extent to which they have effectively led to a decrease in administrative burdens for 
businesses.  

To prepare the above report, the Commission launched a study1 to evaluate the invoicing 
rules assessing the functioning and impact for businesses and tax administrations of the 
current invoicing rules introduced by the Second Invoicing Directive. The conclusions of 
this  evaluation  will  allow  the  Commission  to  assess  the  need  to  amend  the  current 
invoicing rules included in the Value Added Tax (VAT) Directive.  

The  evaluation  covers  five  evaluation  criteria:  i)  relevance,  ii)  effectiveness,  iii) 
efficiency, iv) coherence and v) EU added value.  

The evaluation covers the period from 1 January 2013 (i.e. the transposition date of the 
Second  Invoicing  Directive)  until  mid-2018.  From  a  geographical  point  of  view,  the 
evaluation  covers  all  28  Member  States  (MS).  The  complementary  in-depth  interview 
programme  was  conducted  face-to-face  in  a  representative  sample  of  seven  Member 
States being Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Romania and 
the  findings  were  extrapolated  in  order  to  draw  conclusions  applicable  to  the  whole 
European Union (EU).  

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Directive 2010/45/EU, amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value 
added  tax  as  regards  the  rules  on  invoicing  (Second  Invoicing  Directive)2  aiming  at 
addressing  the  shortcomings  of  the  First  Invoicing  Directive3  entered  into  force  on 
11 August  2010  and  its  provisions  had  to  be  transposed  by  the  Member  States  by 
31 December 2012.  

The Intervention Logic in figure 1 illustrates how the provisions of the Second Invoicing 
Directive (SID) should achieve their policy objectives.  

1   Study 

on 

the 

Evaluation 

of 

Invoicing 

Rules 

of 

Directive 

2006/112/EC: 

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/report_evaluation_invoicing_rules_vol1_en.pdf; 
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/annex_evaluation_invoicing_rules_vol2_en.pdf. 

2   Council  Directive  2010/45/EU  amending  Directive  2006/112/EC  on  the  common  system  of  value  added  tax  as 

regards the rules on invoicing, OJ L 189/1, 22.7.2010.  

3   Council  Directive  2001/115/EC  of  20  December  2001  amending  Directive  77/388/EEC  with  a  view  to 
simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for invoicing in respect of value added tax, 
OJ L 15/24, 17.1.2002. 

1 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 1 – Intervention Logic of the Second Invoicing Directive 

2 

 
 
 
 
As  depicted  above,  the  SID  aimed  at  contributing  to  four  general  policy  objectives 
(impacts): 

1.  The  reduction  of  the  administrative  burdens  on  businesses.  A  number  of 
revisions  of  the  VAT  invoicing  provisions  aimed  at  simplifying  the  invoicing 
rules thus reducing the administrative burdens of businesses;  

2.  The  reduction  of  VAT  fraud.  A  part  of  this  impact  is  also  linked  to  the 
functioning of invoicing rules, such as the underreporting of the VAT via false or 
irregular invoices, the claims of excessive deductions, or the so-called carrousel 
or Missing Trader Intra Community (MTIC) fraud schemes;  

3.  The  improved  functioning  of  the  Internal  Market.  The  SID  seeks  to  remove 
the regulatory barriers to cross-border transactions due to the invoicing rules and 
their application across the EU;  

4.  SME  promotion.  The  SID  introduces  targeted  simplifications  and  fosters  the 
adoption  of  favourable  tax  regimes  such  as  the  cash  accounting  scheme  and  e-
invoicing. 

The SID includes a set of specific objectives (outcomes) which should contribute to the 
general objectives, as follows: 

-  Directly, for example, by reducing the costs borne by businesses to comply with 
legal obligations and lowering the regulatory barriers faced by cross-border trade;  

- 

Indirectly,  for  example,  by  fostering  i)  the  adoption  of  specific  invoicing 
regimes and thus lowering the administrative burdens on businesses, in particular 
the  SMEs;  and  ii)  the  increase  of  e-invoicing  uptake  for  both  domestic  and 
cross-border transactions; 

-  The SID aimed at achieving other specific objectives such as a higher uptake of 
the  cash-accounting  scheme,  a  measure  designed  to  support  SMEs,  and  the 
improvement  of  tax  controls  for  intra-EU  supplies  by  shortening  the  delays 
between the economic transaction and its VAT chargeability.  

For the purpose of the assessment, the changes introduced by the SID, being the activities 
and outputs in the Intervention Logic, are grouped as follows: 1) changes to the content 
of  standard  invoices  and  other  invoice  requirements,  which  support  the  simplification 
objective;  2)  new  provisions  on  cross-border  invoices  and  the  limitations  of  national 
discretionary  powers  on  invoicing  regimes,  to  achieve  a  reduction  of  the  regulatory 
fragmentation; 3) removal of mandatory technological requirements and the introduction 
of the equal treatment of paper-based and electronic invoices, which foster the increase 
of the e-invoicing uptake; 4) introduction of the option to require deductibility on a cash 
basis, which is expected to increase the attractiveness of the cash accounting scheme for 
the Member States.  

A  number  of  factors  that  can  influence  the  achievement  of  the  general  and  specific 
objectives of SID were analysed. These factors have been grouped in five categories: 

3 

 
 
 
 
1)  The  business  resistance  to  changes.  This  has  a  potential  to  limit  or  delay  the 

adoption of new and simpler invoice regimes and processes.  

2)  The  stakeholders’  limited  return  from  change.  For  instance,  for  some  SMEs 
the return on investment from shifting to e-invoicing may be negative given the 
limited  benefits  attainable  due  to  the  small  volume  of  invoices  exchanged. 
Similarly, the potential negative effects of cash-accounting – stemming from the 
more burdensome accounting procedures – may well reduce its attractiveness for 
economic operators;  

3)  The national VAT legislation. Existing divergent national requirements in areas 
not  covered  by  the  SID  may  still  lead  to  uncertainty  and  add  complexity  for 
economic  operators.  For  instance,  different  national  storage  rules  may  still 
represent a barrier towards the e-invoicing adoption. 

4)  The  adjacent  national/EU  legislation  and  policies.  Reporting  requirements, 
archiving rules and law enforcement practices largely remain a matter of national 
law.  The  consequent  cross-country  differences  may  negatively  affect  the 
performance of the Directive.  

5)  The maturity of the IT sector. The capacity to supply secure and interoperable 
e-invoicing solutions and services at reasonable costs influences the likelihood of 
economic operators (especially SMEs) to adopt IT solutions. 

2.2.  Baseline and points of comparison  

Before the SID  entered into force, the invoicing  rules of the VAT Directive included a 
large number of optional provisions allowing Member States to maintain and apply their 
national rules. An evaluation study published in November 20084, supported by a public 
consultation, highlighted that these different options were considered the biggest burden. 
This was especially highlighted for cross-border situations since it meant that businesses 
might have to comply with different requirements for the same transaction. 

The  rules  included  in  the  VAT  Directive  with  regard  to  e-invoicing  were  considered  a 
hurdle  to  the  development  of  e-invoicing.  The  lack  of  a  uniform  definition  of  an  e-
invoice (i.e. the equal treatment of paper and e-invoices) as well as of technical neutrality 
was hampering the use of e-invoicing5.  

The SID addressed a number of the above issues and introduced a number of changes to 
the VAT Directive in the following areas: 

1)  Invoice  issuance  and  content.  The  largest  group  of  provisions  being  rules  on 
when, by whom, and how a standard VAT invoice is to be issued, rules applicable 
to  specific invoicing regimes (i.e. summary, simplified, or self-billing invoices), 
and rules applicable to invoices for cross-border transactions; 

2)  e-Invoicing.  A  small  group  of  provisions  amended  under  Section 5  (renamed 

‘Paper invoices and electronic invoices’), of the Chapter 3 on invoicing;  

4  

5  

PriceWaterhouseCoopers  (2007),  A  Study  on  the  Invoicing  Directive  (2001/115/EC),  Final  report  for  the 
European  Commission.  The  study  was  commissioned  to  provide  the  analytical  background  for  the  reporting 
obligation  of  Article 237  of  the  VAT  Directive,  which  required  the  Commission  to  present  a  report  on 
technological developments in the field of e-invoicing and, if appropriate, an amending proposal.  
Such  conclusion  emerges  from  the  PriceWaterhouseCoopers  (2007),  A  Study  on  the  Invoicing  Directive 
(2001/115/EC) and from European Commission (2009), Final Report of the Expert Group on e-Invoicing.  

4 

 
                                                 
3)  Cash accounting and other provisions. A residual group, included (i) rules on 
cash  accounting;  (ii)  rules  on  the  chargeability,  deductibility,  and  payment  of 
VAT;  and  (iii)  rules  on  the  treatment  and  registration  of  transfer  of  goods  for 
valuation purposes. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

3.1.  Description of the current situation  

This section presents the analysis of how the SID has been transposed and implemented 
by the Member States, focusing on whether Member States have correctly transposed the 
Directive but  also  measuring the extent to  which the national  legal  framework changed 
because of the Directive. For the sake of clarity, the analysis is grouped in four thematic 
areas.  

3.1.1.  e-Invoicing 

A number of consequences derives from the SID with regards to the e-invoicing rules, in 
particular i) on the e-invoice definition, ii) on the technological neutrality and iii) on the 
equal treatment of paper and e-invoices.  

The  SID  modified  the  definition  of  e-invoice  as  ‘an  invoice  that  contains  the 
information  required  in  this  Directive,  and  which  has  been  issued  and  received  in  any 
electronic  form’  (Article 217)6.  As  further  clarified  in  the  Explanatory  Notes7,  the 
Directive does not prescribe any specific electronic form, and thus includes ‘invoices as 
structured  messages  (such  as  XML,  Extensible  Markup  Language)  or  other  types  of 
electronic  formats  (such  as  an  email  with  a  PDF  (Portable  Document  Format) 
attachment or a fax received in electronic not paper format)’. Currently, in all Member 
States  but  Bulgaria,  the  VAT  national  legislation  provides  for  a  definition  of  an  e-
invoice. In 24 Member States, the e-invoice definition in the national legislation mirrors 
the one of the Directive. In a minority of cases, it is enriched with examples of acceptable 
electronic  formats,  encompassing  both  structured  and  unstructured  messages8.  Three 
Member  States  introduced  an  e-invoice  definition  somewhat  diverging  from  the 
Directive9.  

The  SID  provided  for  the  technological  neutrality  of  e-invoicing  solutions  by 
establishing  that  the  taxable  person  can  determine  ‘the  way’  to  ensure  Integrity  and 
Authenticity (I&A)10 of e-invoices (Article 233). The Directive provides only examples 
of approaches to ensure I&A, namely: (i) technological solutions integrated by controlled 
data  exchanges,  i.e.  Electronic  Data  Interchange  (EDI),  (ii)  technological  solutions 

6 
7 

8 

9 

10 

Previously only the transmission of an invoice ‘by electronic means’ was defined in Article 217. 
European  Commission  (2011),  Explanatory  Notes  –  VAT  Invoicing  Rules  Directive  2010/45/EU.  Hereinafter, 
‘Explanatory Notes’. 
For instance, this is the case in Austria (e-mail invoicing), in Croatia (XML and PDF), in Romania (XML and 
PDF), and in Germany (e-mail or de-mail, computer fax via Web download or EDI).  
These include (i) Latvia, where emphasis remains on the transmission mode ‘by electronic means’, (ii) Estonia, 
exclusively considering ‘machine-processable’ (structured) invoices as electronic ones, and (iii) France, requiring 
the whole invoicing process to be in electronic form.  
‘Authenticity’ of the origin of an e-invoice means the assurance of the identity of the supplier or the issuer of the 
invoice, while the ‘Integrity’ of content means that the content required according to the Directive has not been 
altered.  

5 

 
                                                 
integrated  by  data  level  controls,  i.e.  Qualified  Electronic  Signature  (QES),  and  (iii) 
‘Business  Controls  that  create  a  reliable  Audit  Trail’  (BCAT)  between  the  invoice  and 
the corresponding supply of goods or services. The technological neutrality principle has 
been  uniformly  transposed  in  the  EU,  as  no  Member  State  establishes  the  use  of 
particular  technologies  for  e-invoicing.  Different  technological  solutions  listed  in  the 
Directive are also explicitly mentioned as available options in the amended national VAT 
legislation,  in  the  secondary  regulations11  and  in  other  administrative  documents 
(circulars)12 of the majority of Member States.  

As illustrated on figure 1, in most of Member States (24), any means for ensuring I&A of 
e-invoices  is  currently  accepted  without  further  conditions.  Still,  in  three  of  these 
countries,  the  adoption  of  a  solution  different  from  the  one  mentioned  in  the  national 
legislation  requires  a  prior  consultation  and  validation  (Cyprus  and  Spain)  or  a 
notification  (Ireland)  of  the  proposed  method  by  the  tax  authority.  In  the  other  four 
Member States (i.e. Czech Republic, France, Hungary and Portugal), the use of a solution 
to ensure e-invoice I&A different from those specified in the ‘closed’ list foreseen in the 
national  legislation  is  not  accepted13.  Thus,  the  proper  transposition  of  the  freedom  of 
evidence principle in the amended VAT legislations is somewhat questionable. However, 
the inclusion of the BCAT option in these lists, in practice, allows using any technology 
that taxpayers may consider appropriate to automate their invoicing process.  

Figure 2 – Transposition of the technological neutrality principle  

. 

Legend: 

MS with a closed list of 
methods to guarantee e-
invoice I&A 
MS that fully 
transposed the 
‘freedom of evidence’ 
principle 
MS that impose 
conditions to the use of 
‘other means’ 
Non-EU MS 

Source: Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC. 

Legislative  requirements  on  e-invoices  beyond  those  that  exist  for  paper  invoices 
were removed in all Member States which had imposed them. Prior the transposition of 
the  Directive,  four  Member  States  –  Cyprus,  Ireland,  France,  and  the  Netherlands  – 
imposed on taxpayers some sort of prior notification  to  the tax authority in order to  be 
allowed to issue e-invoices. All these legal requirements have been removed, in line with 

11  

12 
13 

In Ireland the ongoing acceptance of other methods used under previous regime is described in European Union 
(Value-Added Tax) Regulations 2012, Statutory Instruments No. 354.  
This is the case of Belgium (Circular letter concerning e-invoicing, AAFisc Nr. 14/2014). 
See  for  the  Czech  Republic:  Amendment  no.  502/2012 of  the  Law  no.  235/2004,  §34  (3)  and  (4);  for  France: 
Article 62 of the Law no. 2012-1510 of 29 December 2012; for Hungary: Article 138 of Act CLXXVIII of 2012 
on VAT; and for Portugal: Article 3 of Decree-law 196 of 2007. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the principle that tax authorities should allow a taxable person the choice between issuing 
paper or e-invoices.  

3.1.2.  Invoicing issuance and content 

The SID introduced a significant number of changes to the issuing of invoices and their 
content.  For  clarity  reasons,  these  changes  were  classified  into  three  areas:  i)  standard 
invoices ii) specific invoicing regimes iii) cross-border provisions.  

The Directive's provisions on invoice issuance and content were very well transposed in 
national legislation. As shown in the table in Annex 4, no Member State was identified as 
non-compliant  for  12  out  of  15  indicators,  while,  in  two  other  cases,  only  two 
discrepancies  in  transposing  the  EU  provisions  were  identified  in  the  national  legal 
framework. 

The  changes  at  national  level  and  the  implementation  of  optional  provisions  are 
described and illustrated in more detail in Annex 4.  

Standard invoices  

The  SID  adds  or  simplifies  some  clauses  to  be  included  on  standard  invoices 
(Article 226)14.  

Specific invoicing regimes 

The Directive amends three specific invoicing regimes, and namely the rules on: (i) self-
billing; (ii) simplified invoices; and (iii) summary invoices. More specifically: 

  Self-billing  invoice  (Article 224)15:  The  Directive  removes  the  possibility  for 
Member  States  to  impose  further  conditions  on  the  prior  agreement  and  the 
acceptance procedure for the issuance of self-billing invoices16.  

  Simplified invoice (Articles 220a, 226b and 238)17: Prior to the SID this regime 
was  optional  for  Member  States.  The  new  Article 220a  requires  all  Member 
States to allow simplified invoices when (i) the amount of the transaction is lower 
than  EUR 100;  and  (ii)  for  documents  or  messages  treated  as  an  invoice. 
Article 238  grants  Member  States  the  possibility  to  extend  this  regime  for 
transactions up to EUR 400 or to specific business sectors.  

  Summary  invoice  (Article 223)18:  Prior  to  the  SID,  Article 223  allowed  the 
Member  States  in  which  the  transaction  took  place  to  impose  its  own  national 
conditions on the use of summary invoices. The SID (i) removes the possibility to 
add  national  conditions;  (ii)  provides  that  summary  invoices  can  cover  at  least 

14 

It introduces three additional clauses for the identification of the  applicable regimes: (i) ‘cash accounting’; (ii) 
‘self-billing’; and (iii) ‘reverse charge’ and it simplifies two clauses – items 13 and 14 of Article 226.  

15   A self-billing invoice can be issued by the customer on behalf of the supplier.  
16   Member States remain free to define the form of the prior agreement and the acceptance procedure, e.g. whether 

they need to be in writing. 

17   A simplified invoice, that is an invoice including less information than a standard one, can be used for domestic 

transactions of low value or in specific industries.  

18   A summary invoice is a document covering separate supplies of goods or services provided by a taxable person 

to the same customer.  

7 

 
                                                 
one  month  of  transactions;  and  (iii)  allows  Member  States  to  extend  the  period 
that can be covered by summary invoices.  

Cross-border provisions 

The  SID  introduces  a  number  of  changes  to  the  invoicing  requirements  applicable  to 
cross-border transactions, in view of reducing burdens and increasing harmonisation. 

the 

invoicing  rules  for  cross-border 

  Applicable  rules  (Article 219a):  The  SID  adds  a  new  article  clarifying  which 
transactions. 
jurisdiction  determines 
Article 219a states that the applicable national invoicing rules – except for those 
related to  storage  –  follow the determination of the place of supply19. However, 
the  supplier's  own  national  invoicing  rules  apply,  regardless  of  the  place  of 
transaction, to cross-border supplies when the customer is liable for the payment 
of the VAT.  

  Time  of  issuance  (Article 222):  the  Directive  mandates  a  single  time  limit  to 
issue  invoices  for  certain  cross-border  transactions20.  For  other  transactions, 
Member States remain free to impose any time limit for the issuance of invoices.  
  Content  of  cross-border  invoices:  the  content  of  cross-border  invoices  is 
modified by the SID. According to the new Article 226a, when the Member State 
of establishment of the supplier is not the same one in which the VAT is due and 
the  customer  is  liable  for  paying  the  VAT,  information  on  the  VAT  rate  and 
VAT  amount  payable  can  be  omitted  from  the  invoice.  Article 230  prescribes 
that the amount of the VAT payable or to be adjusted is expressed in the currency 
of  the  Member  State  in  which  the  tax  is  due.  The  SID  also  adds  another 
conversion  method  to  express  the  VAT  amount  in  the  appropriate  currency  in 
Article 91 of the VAT Directive, i.e. the reference to the latest European Central 
Bank  (ECB)  exchange  rate.  The  Directive  removes  the  possibility  for  Member 
States  to  introduce  a  general  requirement  for  the  translation  of  invoices,  by 
repealing Article 23121.  

  Invoice for payment on accounts on intra-EU supplies (Article 220(1)(4)): the 
SID  removed  the  obligation  for  Member  States  to  require  an  invoice  in  case  of 
payment on accounts received before an intra-EU supply of good (a VAT exempt 
transaction22)  is  carried  out.  At  the  same  time  Member  States  remain  free  to 
require an invoice for these transactions, based on Article 221(1). 

Attribution of legal changes and prioritisation of provisions  

The SID caused a number of changes in the national invoicing legislations. Some of the 
changes were mandated by the Directive, other changes were optional for Member States 
and  some  other  changes  were  introduced  by  the  Member  States  as  additional 

19  
20  

I.e. the rules established in the Title V of the VAT Directive. 
Intra-EU acquisition of goods ex Article 138, and supplies of services for which VAT is payable by the customer 
ex Article 196. 

21   At  the  same  time  the  Directive  introduces  Article 248a,  which  prescribes  that  Member  States  may  require  the 

translation of invoices only ‘for certain taxable persons or in certain cases'.  

22   Under Article 220(1)(4), an invoice shall still be required for payments on account made before supplies of goods 
and service made to another taxable person or a non-taxable legal person, and before distance supplies of goods.  

8 

 
                                                 
simplifications and thus not foreseen by the Directive23. The SID worked in some cases 
as  a  trigger  to  review  the  overall  invoicing  framework.  In  all  cases,  the  extent  of  the 
changes  caused  depends  on  how  previous  national  legislation  was  framed  and  thus  the 
Directive had an uneven impact on the national legal frameworks.  

As described in more detail in Annex 4, for three provisions, most of national legislations 
were already in  line with  the SID since changes in  legislation occurred in less than ten 
Member States. These include the requirements to translate all invoices, the removal of 
the duty for providers of financial services to issue an invoice for intra-EU transactions, 
and the changes to the regime of summary invoicing. For four of the SID provisions, the 
changes in domestic legislation affected between 10 to 19 Member States depending on 
the  provision.  These  include  changes  to  the  self-billing  regime  and  a  number  of  cross-
border provisions. Finally, for three further provisions, the changes concern 20 Member 
States  or  more.  These  relate  to  the  case  of  simplified  invoices  and  the  time  limits  for 
invoicing intra-EU transactions, or even the whole EU regarding the modification of the 
clauses to be mentioned on standard invoices. 

Prioritisation of provisions in the area of invoicing issuance and content 

The provisions in the area of invoicing issuance and content were prioritised based on the extent of legal change (i.e. the number of 
Member States in which they caused a changed to the national framework) and the local VAT practitioners’ perception of whether 
they had affected the behaviour of companies. This was necessary to determine which of the provisions had to be subject to a more 
thorough assessment.  

Provision (and Article) 

Prioritisation 

Applicable jurisdiction – Article 219a 
Issuance - Insurance and financial services – Articles 220.2, 221.2 
Invoice on payments on accounts for intra-EU supplies – Article 220.1.4 

Simplified Invoice – Articles 220a, 226b, 238 

Timing – Article 222 

Summary Invoice – Article 223 

Self-billing – Article 224 

Content - Standard Invoices – Article 226 

Content - cross-border supply with reverse charge – Article 226a 

Currency conversion – Articles 91, 230 

Translation – Article 248a 
Source: Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC , January 2019 

Substantive 
Minor 
Minor 
Substantive 

Substantive 

Minor 

Substantive 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor 

Negligible 

3.1.3.  Other provisions 

Cash accounting 

The  Second  Invoicing  Directive  introduced  one  specific  change  targeting  SMEs.  The 
new  Article 167a  grants  Member  States  the  possibility  to  introduce  the  so-called 
‘combined cash accounting’ for certain micro-enterprises, i.e. a regime through which 
both  VAT  payment  and  deduction  are  linked  to,  respectively,  receiving  and  paying  the 
price of the supplies24.  

It is possible to consider that the Directive triggered these changes indirectly.  

23   
24   The cash accounting scheme could already be introduced prior to the Second Invoicing Directive, but no specific 

provision concerned the possibility to postpone the VAT deductibility.  

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
The analysis of the transposition of the cash accounting provision shows no discrepancies 
between EU prescriptions and national legal frameworks. The implementation at national 
level is shown in annex 5.  

VAT chargeability 

The  SID  introduced  two  changes  concerning  the  rules  for  the  intra-Community  supply 
and  acquisition  of  goods,  with  the  aim  of  fighting  cross-border  VAT  fraud:  1)  the 
Directive  amended  Articles 66,  67  and  69  and  aligned  the  chargeability  of  intra-EU 
supplies and acquisitions of goods, which is now set upon issuance of the invoice, or no 
later than the 15th  day of the month following the taxable event,  2) it introduced more 
stringent rules for the intra-EU continuous supplies of goods (Article 64), which became 
chargeable at the end of each calendar month.  

With  respect  to  the  chargeability  of  intra-EU  supplies  and  acquisition  of  goods,  the 
situation of the national legislations prior to the SID was rather homogeneous. A majority 
of  Member  States  already  had  foreseen  that  the  VAT  chargeability  date  was  set  each 
month  no  later  than  the  15th  of  the  month  following  the  chargeable  event,  or  upon 
issuance  of  the  invoice.  Currently,  all  Member  States  have  converged  towards  the 
common  date  of  chargeability  provided  for  by  Articles 67  and  69.  Regarding  the 
chargeability of intra-EU continuous supplies of goods, in the majority of Member States 
(15), the practice was similar to the current SID provisions. In eight Member States, the 
chargeability  of  VAT  coincided  with  the  dispatch  or  arrival  of  the  goods,  so  that  there 
was no specific provision at all for continuous supplies. Finally, in three Member States, 
the VAT chargeability was linked to the receipt of the price (or at the end of the year if 
the price was not paid), while, in one Member State, it took place at the end of the tax 
reporting period. The situation has now been harmonised. 

3.1.4.  Archiving 

The  provisions  on  the  archiving  of  invoices  were  not  amended  by  the  SID.  Since 
different  archiving  rules  and  e-invoicing  storage  requirements  could  represent  a  barrier 
for the uptake of the e-invoice and an obstacle for cross-border trade, their current status 
of implementation has been assessed.  

Regarding the storage period, Member States are free to determine the period of storage 
(Article 247(1))  which  varies  from  4  to  10  years  with  the  majority  of  countries  opting 
from 5 to 7 years (detailed overview can be found in figure 1 of Annex 6). On the place 
of  storage,  Article 245  establishes  the  freedom  to  store  invoices  abroad,  however, 
Member  States  may  impose  additional  requirements.  Detailed  overview  of  the 
implementation including the additional requirements is included in figure 2 of Annex 6. 
Following  Article 247(2)  Member  States  may  require  that  invoices  be  stored  in  the 
original  form  in  which  they  were  sent.  Such  restriction  is  imposed  currently  only  by 
three Member States. Other Member States allow the conversion, although some Member 
States  only  allow  the  conversion  from  paper  invoices  to  electronic  ones  (a  detailed 
overview of the situation regarding the storage form is included in figure 3 of Annex 6).  

10 

 
4. 

METHOD 

4.1. 

Short description of methodology 

The  evaluation  was  supported  by  the  external  study25  and  based  on  a  set  of  evaluation 
questions,  connected  to  the  five  evaluation  criteria  defined  by  the  Commission  Better 
Regulation  Guidelines,  namely  (i)  relevance;  (ii)  effectiveness;  (iii)  efficiency;  (iv) 
coherence; and (v) EU added value.  

The Standard Cost Model (SCM) was used in order to quantify the administrative costs 
and costs savings. The detailed description of the application of the model is included in 
Annex 3.  

4.2.  Data collection activities 

A number of data collection activities took place to support and underpin the evaluation. 
The full range of information regarding the different activities can be found in Annex 2. 

4.2.1.  Legal mapping exercise 

The legal mapping exercise undertaken by the external consultant consisted of a review 
of the national legal frameworks on VAT invoicing rules in order to: (i) assess the status 
of  transposition;  (ii)  examine  the  main  differences  in  interpretation  and  application  of 
invoicing  rules  across  Member  States;  and  (iii)  assess  the  extent  of  the  legal  change  in 
each  country.  To  achieve  these  aims,  this  fact-finding  activity  gathered  accurate 
information  on  how  the  28  Member  States  have  implemented  the  Directive  and  on  the 
relevant national norms prior to its adoption.  

4.2.2.  Business survey 

The business survey aimed at collecting information necessary to evaluate the uptake of 
the  e-invoicing.  The  business  survey  covered  250  respondents  in  each  of  the  eight 
countries and resulted in over 2 000 completed questionnaires which were subsequently 
analysed. More details on the business survey are included in Annex 2.  

4.2.3.  Targeted consultations 

Targeted  consultations  aimed  at  gathering  information  and  opinions  on  the  invoicing 
rules  from  a  vast  range  of  private  and  public  stakeholders.  In  total,  202  stakeholders 
participated  in  the  targeted  consultation.  Economic  operators  represent  the  most 
important  category  with  83  stakeholders,  followed  by  business  federations  and  tax 
authorities.  From  a  geographical  perspective,  stakeholders  from  26  Member  States 
participated  in  the  consultations,  thus  ensuring  a  very  comprehensive  coverage.  The 
consultations  also  covered  13  EU-level  organisations,  and  7  multi-national  companies. 
The process of targeted consultations is described in detail in Annex 2.  

4.2.4.  The Public Consultation  

The  Public  Consultation  was  carried  out  in  order  to  gather  the  appreciation  of 
stakeholders  and  citizens  on  the  working  of  the  Directive  and  the  possible  need  for 

25  

Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC, January 2019. The report was prepared by a 
group of consulting firms and research institutions led by Economisti Associati.  

11 

 
                                                 
revisions.  A  total  of  175  valid  responses  were  received  from  23  Member  States.  The 
majority  of  respondents  (113)  answered  the  public  consultation  in  their  professional 
capacity, while 62 private individuals participated in their personal capacity. More details 
about the public consultation can be found in Annex 2.  

5. 

ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

This section provides the assessment and answers to the five evaluation criteria. A more 
compact  overview  of  the  assessment  of  evaluation  criteria  is  included  in  table  in 
Annex 7.  

5.1 

Relevance 

This sub-section provides an overview on the relevance of Directive 2010/45/EU.  

5.1.1  The opinion of the stakeholders on the objectives of the Directive 

During  the  targeted  and  public  consultation  stakeholders  were  asked  to  assess  the 
importance of the objectives of the Directive (see Section 2.1 above) together with a fifth 
possible objective, that is legal certainty. All the Directive policy objectives are said to be 
important or highly important by a large majority of stakeholders (no less than 69%). The 
public  consultation  showed  that  stakeholders  consider  the  establishment  of  clear 
invoicing rules (legal certainty), and the reduction of differences in invoicing rules across 
EU  countries  (harmonisation)  as  top  priorities.  The  responses  by  tax  authorities  and 
business stakeholders about these two goals are largely homogeneous.  

5.1.2  E-invoicing rules: positive impacts and challenges  

The  review  of  the  national  legal  frameworks  on  e-invoicing  points  out  that  both  the 
fragmentation and the complexity have largely decreased across the EU as a result of the 
transposition of the SID. To illustrate this evolution, Member States were categorised by 
the  degree  of  strictness  of  the  national  requirements  regarding  the  e-invoicing.  The 
national  e-invoicing  requirements  of  all  Member  States  were  categorized  into  four 
groups,  i.e.  (i)  ‘liberal’,  (ii)  ‘moderately  strict’,  (iii)  ‘strict’,  and  (iv)  ‘very  strict’.  The 
categorisation  was  based  on  two  main  criteria:  (i)  the  openness  towards  the  methods 
accepted  to  prove  the  e-invoice  I&A,  and  (ii)  the  existence  of  specific  e-invoicing 
requirements, such as the explicit acceptance by the recipient, the prior notification to the 
tax authority, or specific requirements on EDI.  

After the transposition of the SID, a much more coherent framework has emerged, with 
the  vast  majority  of  Member  States  adopting  a  rather  ‘liberal’  approach  by  removing 
national  specific  e-invoicing  requirements.  Before  the  Directive  came  into  force,  17 
Member States were categorised as ‘strict’ or ‘very strict’. After the transposition of the 
Directive the situation changed: 24 Member States can now be labelled as ‘liberal’ and 
only four countries remain ‘moderately strict’.  

Figure  3  –  Member  States  convergence  towards  a  liberal  and  harmonised  e-
invoicing framework (source Figure 18 of the Study) 

12 

 
Before the Directive 

After the Directive 

Liberal 
Moderately strict 

Strict 
Very strict 

Non-EU countries 

The  legal  changes  triggered  by  the  transposition  of  the  SID  improved  the  e-invoicing 
regulatory framework significantly, especially for domestic transactions. According to a 
majority of stakeholders, the evolution in the past five years has been towards easier e-
invoicing requirements. 

The stakeholders’ consultations highlighted two positive changes: (i) the equal treatment 
of  paper  and  e-invoices  and  the  consequent  removal  of  national  e-invoicing  specific 
requirements (e.g. such as the use of a given e-signature in Germany or the obligation to 
sign and stamp invoices in Romania); and (ii) the acceptance of invoices in PDF format 
(in  some  cases,  in  connection  with  the  introduction  of  a  clear-cut  e-invoice  definition), 
which mainstreamed an easier e-invoicing solution, especially for micro firms. 

The  two  main  challenges  highlighted  by  the  stakeholders  concern  the  unclear  legal 
requirements and the BCAT.  

The analysis by business size class shows that unclear legal requirements represent a 
bigger  barrier  for  larger  companies  (and  conversely  a  minor  one  for  micro 
companies). Based on the evidence gathered from the targeted consultation, this may be 
explained by two main factors. First, larger companies are comparatively more concerned 
with legal compliance, while micro firms tend to exchange unstructured e-invoices with a 
limited awareness of or compliance with I&A requirements. Second, large companies are 
more  likely  to  have  a  significant  share  of  cross-border  transactions,  in  which  legal 
uncertainties may be felt more strongly. In other words, the legal requirements are not an 
issue for all the stakeholders. 

The  BCAT  represent  an  issue  for  business  stakeholders.  A  number  of  stakeholders 
pointed  to  the  vagueness  of  the  BCAT  option  and  the  lack  of  some  practical 
definitions and examples of ‘business controls’ and ‘reliable audit trail’, in the SID 
as well as in the Explanatory Notes. Sixteen Member States attempted to fill this gap 
through  secondary  legislation  as  well  as  guidance  documents,  providing  more  or  less 
detailed  instructions  on  how  business  controls  can  be  implemented  in  practice.  Despite 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
these national efforts, in most cases, economic operators do not regard the guidance 
provided on BCAT as adequate or sufficiently clear. This translates into doubts on 
how this option should be applied in practice and whether it will be accepted during 
tax audits.  

5.1.3  Invoicing rules 

Positive impacts 

The introduction of SID had three main positive impacts. Firstly, the Directive fostered 
the  convergence  towards  more  liberal  invoicing  rules.  This  is  the  result  from  the  joint 
effect of: (i) the Directive revision; (ii) national decisions on how to implement optional 
simplifications; and (iii) national interventions in areas in which the Member States still 
retain discretionary power. Based on the external study, in 2013 most of Member States 
(16)  fell  in  the  strict  or  very  strict  categories  for  what  concerns  invoicing  rules,  while 
presently the majority of them (21) fall in the liberal category. In addition, no Member 
State belongs to the ‘very strict’ category any longer (four of them did in 2013).  

Secondly, the rules for cross-border invoicing became a little bit simpler. About 20% of 
the  business  stakeholders  saw  an  improvement  since  2013  when  SID  became 
applicable.  Such  an  improvement  could  be  interpreted  as  limited  however  the  small 
magnitude of pre-existing problems does limit the simplification potential that could be 
achieved by the Directive. 

Thirdly,  the  evaluation  looked  in  detail  at  three  further  elements  which  70%  of  the 
business stakeholders interviewed consider to work well or very well. The elements are 
the  following:  (i)  Article 219a  on  the  applicable  invoicing  rules;  (ii)  the  new  uniform 
time limit for the issuance of invoices for intra-EU transactions; and (iii) the inclusion of 
the ECB exchange rate among the currency conversion methods.  

Challenges 

There  are two main complexities identified by the stakeholders regarding the invoicing 
rules: i) the invoicing issuance, and ii) the content of invoices. Regarding the invoicing 
issuance,  the  stakeholders  do  not  perceive  compliance  with  VAT  rules  for  standard 
invoices as complex. Two-thirds of the companies and business federations interviewed 
do  not  point  out  to  any  invoicing  requirement  which  is  either  too  complex  or 
excessively  burdensome.  This  is  because  the  compliance  with  the  applicable  rules  has 
become a steady part of a firm’s knowhow, so that it poses them no significant problems 
for  most  of  their  transactions.  The  vast  majority  of  tax  authorities  and  business 
stakeholders  do  not  consider  compliance  with  invoicing  rules  as  a  severe  source  of 
problems.  

Secondly,  business  stakeholders  express  a  positive  assessment  with  regards  to  the 
working  of  the  norms  governing  the  content  of  standard  invoices  (i.e.  Article 226). 
Only  15%  of  stakeholders  consider  that  they  do  not  work  so  well  or  not  well  at  all. 
However, the main critique on this provision voiced by stakeholders does not concern 
the Directive itself, but the ‘formalism of tax authorities’ in enforcing Article 226.  

14 

 
5.1.4  Specific invoicing regimes 

Simplified invoices 

Available evidence from the fieldwork indicates that the uptake of this regime varies both 
across industries and countries. Simplified invoices are commonly only used in specific 
sectors, such as accommodation and restaurant, retail trade, petrol stations and transport 
services,  which  feature  a  high  number  of  low  value  deals  and  a  relatively  higher 
importance  of  Business-to-Customer  (B2C) 
transactions.  From  a  geographical 
perspective,  the  fieldwork  has  shown  that  the  uptake  of  this  regime  is  uneven.  This 
regime  is  more  commonly  used  –  albeit  always  sector-specific  –  in  countries  such  as 
Germany,  Portugal,  Romania  and  the  Netherlands,  and  very  uncommon  in  other 
countries, such as Poland or Italy. 

Summary invoices 

A  summary  invoice  is  no  different  from  a  standard  one,  the  only  difference  is  in  the 
description  of  the  goods  or  services  provided,  which  makes  reference  to  multiple 
supplies. Summary invoices remain mostly a sector specific tool, more commonly used 
for  the  provision  of  goods  rather  than  services,  and  in  specific  sectors  (e.g.  petrol 
stations,  utilities,  large  wholesalers).  Summary  invoices  can  reduce,  sometimes 
significantly, the number of invoices issued and received by economic operators having 
long-term  business  relationships  with  a  stable  supply  chain.  However,  the  relevance  of 
summary invoices to business’ needs is hardly supported by evidence about their current 
uptake and the recent trends. Indeed, over 50% of the stakeholders considered summary 
invoices  seem  not  very  commonly  used.  In  terms  of  evolution,  the  vast  majority  of 
stakeholders saw no change in their usage, confirming that the modifications introduced 
by the Directive did not have a significant effect on this regime. 

Self-billing 

The  use  of  the  self-billing  regime  is  concentrated  in  very  few  industries,  or,  more 
precisely,  in  very  few  companies  within  specific  industries.  It  is  commonly  used  when 
very  large  companies  –  mostly  in  the  manufacturing  sector,  and,  in  particular,  the 
automotive  industry  –  impose  self-billing  on  their  vast  range  of  suppliers,  as  a  way  to 
receive all invoices in a single, and usually automatically processable form. Taking into 
account  how  ‘specialised’  the  use  of  self-billing  is,  VAT  practitioners  and  business 
federations  interviewed  consider  its  uptake  within  the  overall  economy  as  ‘limited’  or 
‘very limited’. 

5.1.5  Other issues analysed  

Archiving.  The  degree  of  complexity  of  archiving  provisions  for  paper  invoices  is 
assessed  as  modest.  Over  60%  of  stakeholders  answer  that  paper-based  archiving  is 
‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to implement, while only a minority of them (approximately 17%) 
consider these rules to be ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’. These results point to the fact that 
businesses  have  probably  grown  accustomed  to  longstanding  rules  on  the  storage  of 
paper fiscal documents.  

Cash  accounting.  Following  the  implementation  of  the  new  Article 167a,  cash 
accounting became available in eight additional countries, while in four Member States 

15 

 
its  scope  was  increased.  Even  if  business  stakeholders  consider  the  cash  accounting 
scheme as very important, its uptake points out that this regime responds to the needs of 
only a limited number of companies. In 9 out of the 11 countries in which exact data or 
reliable estimates were available, less than 4% of micro enterprises opt for this regime, 
and, in 7 Member States, its share is below 1%. 

The  additional  costs  and  complexity  of  the  accountancy  requirements  and  resistance 
from customers limit the cash accounting uptake, which, however, has little to do with 
the SID provisions.  

Tax control. On tax control, out of 24 respondents from national tax authorities, 20 are 
of  the  opinion  that  there  are  no  or  only  minor  issues  with  the  statement  that  ‘VAT 
invoicing rules are not in line with the needs of tax control activities’. At the same time, 
several  authorities  suggest  that  invoicing  rules  are  far  from  being  the  most  important 
factor  for  tax  control.  The  limited  (and  declining)  importance  attributed  by  tax 
authorities  to  invoicing  rules  also  appears  from  the  growing  trend  in  introducing 
additional, e-reporting requirements. 

VAT chargeability.  The view of tax authorities and VAT practitioners on the working of 
the  new  VAT  chargeability  rules  is  negative.  More  than  half  of  the  respondents 
commented that the new rules on the chargeability of intra-EU supplies and acquisitions 
of  goods,  including  the  specific  rules  for  continuous  transactions,  do  not  work  well,  or 
not at all. The main explanation provided is that they are not fit to achieve their expected 
purpose.  Indeed,  on  one  side,  fraudsters  are  well  versed  in  complying  with  formal 
obligations,  including  timing  and  chargeability  issues,  so  that  no  changes  to  their 
behaviours  could  be  expected  from  these  provisions.  On  the  other  hand,  the  study 
concludes that acting on chargeability rules rather than improving the real time and 
electronic  reporting  of  intra-EU  transactions  could  not  significantly  improve  the 
quality  and  timeliness  of  the  information  put  at  disposal  of  the  enforcement 
authorities for fraud identification and prevention purposes. 

5.2 

Effectiveness 

The following sub-section presents the assessment of effectiveness of the invoicing rules, 
namely  whether  and  to  what  extent  the  SID  has  achieved  its  objectives  namely  i)  the 
reduction of the administrative burdens on businesses, ii) the reduction  of VAT frauds, 
iii)  the  proper  functioning  of  the  Internal  Market  and  iv)  SMEs  promotion  (see  section 
2.1. for more detail).  

5.2.1  The uptake of e-invoicing 

Since  2014  there  has  been  a  considerable  growth  in  the  uptake  of  e-invoicing  in  the 
EU.  The  average  annual  growth  rate  was  estimated  to  be  higher  for  unstructured  e-
invoices  (8.8 p.p.  for  micro  firms  and  6.0 p.p.  for  larger  firms)  than  in  the  case  of 
structured  e-invoices  (about  +4 p.p.  for  all  size  classes).  In  2017,  about  18  billion 
invoices have been issued in the EU. Out of these, 5 billion were electronic invoices, 3 
billion of which were emitted in an unstructured format.  

16 

 
 
The Directive had a measurable impact on the increased acceptance of unstructured e-
invoices.  The  simplification  brought  about  by  the  Directive  in  a  number  of  Member 
States  fostered  an  amount  of  companies  to  switch  from  paper  invoices  to  unstructured 
(PDF) e-invoices. This is especially true for those Member States that had previously in 
place a number of more stringent e-invoicing requirements. Based on the study, the SID 
lead  to  a  30%  increase  in  the  uptake  of  e-invoices  in  the  Member  States  that  had 
significantly  reduced  their  regulatory  requirements,  and  to  a  15%  increase  in  those 
Member  States  that  introduced  only  a  moderate  reduction  of  their  regulatory 
requirements.  

Driving factors of change 

The push from trading partners can be considered as the main reason why the business 
population at large, and, in particular, micro and small companies have been adopting e-
invoicing  over  the  last  five  years.  From  a  structural  point  of  view,  the  fact  that  a  large 
multinational moves to an automated system and requires all its trading partners to adopt 
it is de facto the main reason for its adoption. 

The other very important, albeit geographically concentrated, driver for the adoption of 
e-invoicing  is  the  mandatory  Business-to-Government  (B2G)  e-invoicing  requirements. 
While it obviously plays no role in the Member States in which it is not yet in force, it is 
invariably  mentioned  as  a  major  driver  in  the  countries  (e.g.  Italy)  or  market  segments 
concerned (e.g. medium and large companies in France). 

Obstacles to change 

The main message from the stakeholders is that there is no major barrier to change for e-
invoicing. This opinion is the strongest among the micro-enterprises.  

There are nevertheless two minor barriers that deserve attention. The first element is the 
lack  of  interest  from  suppliers  and  customers  which  was  mentioned  as  a  hindering 
factor  by  more  than  50%  of  the  economic  operators.  A  second  hindering  factor 
mentioned  by  about  one  third  of  the  participants  is  the  lack  of  familiarity  with  e-
invoicing technologies. 

5.2.2  The reduction of administrative burdens on businesses 

The  SID  is  estimated  to  have  reduced  administrative  burdens  on  companies  by  about 
EUR 540 million in 2017, and about EUR 1.04 billion over the 2014-2017 period26. Most 
of  these  savings  –  EUR 920 million  –  are  due  to  the  higher  uptake  of  unstructured  e-
invoicing driven by the SID.  

The  estimated  administrative  burden  savings  are  considerably  lower  than  previous 
estimates  of  the  savings  achievable  by  e-invoicing  assessed  by  the  EU  Baseline 
Measurement of Administrative Burdens Project27. The estimated EUR 18 billion savings 
resulted  from  the  reduction  of  burdens  due  to  the  IO  ‘VAT  bookkeeping  in  sufficient 
detail  for  inspection  by  tax  authorities’,  that  includes  the  activities  for  reviewing  and 

The calculations, based on the Standard Cost Model, are described in Section 6 of the Study. 

26 
27   Capgemini (2009), EU Project on Baseline Measurement and Reduction of Administrative Costs, Final Report 

incorporating Module 5.2 – Development of Reduction Recommendations. 

17 

 
                                                 
booking sale and purchase invoices, and keeping sale and purchase ledgers. This IO was 
estimated  to  generate  about  EUR 35 billion  of  administrative  costs,  of  which  about 
EUR 27 billion attributable to burdens28. It was estimated that, if all companies switched 
to automatically-processable invoices, about half of these costs could be saved, because 
of the automation of the bookkeeping process.  

The  EUR 18 billion  figure  was  thus  highly  hypothetical,  as  it  provided  a  maximum 
saving  potential  assuming  that  (i)  all  companies  switched  to  e-invoicing;  and  (ii)  only 
automatically-processable e-invoices were used. These assumptions are different than the 
reality under the SID as the uptake by businesses of the e-invoicing is not 100% and the 
e-invoicing  encompasses  less  structured  e-invoices  and  more  unstructured  e-invoices. 
The evaluation did not assess the saving potential of e-invoicing, but assessed the actual 
administrative  burden  savings  under  the  current  circumstances.  Therefore,  the  savings 
which  have  actually  occurred  are  almost  exclusively  due  to  the  uptake  of  unstructured 
(i.e.  not  automatically-processable)  e-invoices.  Consequently,  the  savings  calculated  by 
this evaluation are inevitably and significantly lower.  

The  invoicing  issuance,  though,  had  limited  impact  in  terms  of  cost  reductions  since  it 
produced  savings  of  EUR 114 million  throughout  the  whole  period.  Two  main  factors 
explain  why  the  savings  in  the  area  of  invoicing  issuance  reached  this  level.  First  and 
foremost,  invoicing  is  a  routine  activity  for  companies,  and  they  are  very  much 
acquainted with complying with the invoicing rules applicable to their usual transactions. 
When entering a new market or undertaking a different activity, they have to familiarise 
themselves  with  the  new  requirements.  For  standard  transactions  invoicing  is  hardly 
perceived as a costly activity at all, except for very large issuers and receivers given the 
high  number  of  invoices.  Secondly,  the  business  resistance  to  changes  in  invoicing 
practices  is  a  hindering  factor  to  the  uptake  and  impact  of  certain  simplifications 
introduced  by  the  SID.  This  implies  that,  even  when  new  and  less  costly  invoicing 
regimes are designed or promoted, their uptake may remain uneven.  

5.2.3  Functioning of the Internal Market 

The  Directive  should  have  improved  the  functioning  of  the  Internal  Market  by  i) 
increasing  the  uptake  of  e-invoices  in  cross-border  transactions,  ii)  improving  legal 
certainty  and  reducing  the  burdens  generated  by  cross-border  invoicing  rules  and  iii) 
creating  the  conditions  for  more  competition  in  the  market  for  e-invoicing  service 
providers.  

The increase in the uptake of e-invoicing in cross-border transactions 

The  business  survey  data29  shows  that  in  2018  the  share  of  companies  having  issued  a 
cross-border  e-invoice  was  34%30.  When  looking  only  at  companies  which  have  cross-
border  transactions,  the  share  is  72%.  In  terms  of  volume,  e-invoices  represent  about 
44% of  the total  intra-EU invoices  issued, with micro companies issuing  about  36% of 
their  cross-border  invoices  in  electronic  form,  while  for  large  enterprises  the  share 
reaches up to 52%. These numbers reflect an increase compared to 2014 when the share 

28   Capgemini (2009), EU Project on Baseline Measurement and Reduction of Administrative Costs, Final Report, 

Measurement data and analysis as specified in the specific contract 5&6 on Modules 3&4 . 

18 

 
                                                 
of  companies  which  issued  cross-border  e-invoices  was  at  12%  and  considering 
companies which sell cross-border, the share was 27%.  

Such  increase  in  the  uptake  of  the  cross-border  e-invoicing  suggests  that  some 
complexities  and  difficulties  have  been  removed.  This  was  largely  acknowledged  by 
stakeholders.   

Legal certainty and administrative burden of cross-border invoicing rules 

The Directive introduced four significant changes to the rules applicable to cross-border 
invoices:  (i)  the  new  rules  on  the  applicable  invoicing  regimes  (Article 219a);  (ii)  the 
uniform  time  limit  for  the  issuance  of  invoices  for  intra-EU  transactions  (Article 222); 
(iii) the new rules on currency conversion (Articles 91 and 230); and (iv) the simplified 
content of invoices for cross-border transactions subject to reverse charge (Article 226a). 
Furthermore,  the  new  rules  on  self-billing  (Article 224)  also  simplified  the  use  of  this 
regime for cross-border transactions. These changes increased the legal certainty of the 
invoicing rules applicable to intra-EU transactions31. 

The promotion of lower prices and/or increased availability of suppliers for e-invoicing 
services 

The simpler and more harmonised rules introduced by the SID could have improved the 
functioning of the Internal Market by reducing the barriers to competition in the market 
for the provision of e-invoicing services. In turn, this would increase cross-border market 
entry  and  decrease  the  switching  costs  for  companies  for  resorting  to  another  provider, 
thus eventually putting a downward pressure on market prices.  

The evaluation showed that there seem to exist two relevant market segments based on 
the  size  of  customers,  with  different  players  and  competitive  conditions.  On  one  side, 
there is the high-end segment, where customers consist of very large companies issuing 
or  receiving  a  bulky  volume  of  structured  e-invoices  (more  than  1 000 000  per  year). 
Only  few  e-invoicing  service  providers  operate  in  this  market  segment;  international 
competition exists in this segment and moderately increased over the recent years. On the 
other  side,  there  is  the  low-end  segment,  which  includes  the  remaining  business 
population issuing or receiving at least 1 000 invoices per year. Several players, mostly 
domestic, entered this market segment. The harmonisation which resulted from the SID 
is seen as a positive factor in reducing barriers to entering other Member States’ high-end 
market  segment.  The  effect  of  the  SID  on  the  low-end  segment  has  been  very  limited 
since the cross-border competition is very scarce in this segment.  

The evaluation concludes that the evolution of the competitive conditions in the market 
of e-invoicing services did not result in the decrease of market prices.  

29 

Based  on  size  classes  and  industries  populations  retrieved  from  Eurostat  Structural  Business  Statistics  and 
adjusted for the number of companies with internet access (Eurostat ICT usage in enterprises).  
The statistics for invoices received show very similar results, so only issued invoices are discussed. 

30 
31   More  information  about  the  four  changes  are  to  be  found  in  section  5.3.2  of  the  Study  on  the  evaluation  of 

Invoicing Rules of Directive 2006/112/EC. 

19 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
5.2.4  SME promotion 

Most of the measures of the SID apply to both large enterprises and SMEs. However, by 
simplifying  the  regulatory  framework  and,  thus,  reducing  administrative  burdens,  they 
have  the  potential  to  be  especially  beneficial  for  SMEs,  which  usually  suffer  red  tape 
more than large companies due to their smaller size. Furthermore, the Directive has also 
amended two invoicing regimes fully or partly targeted to SMEs, namely cash accounting 
and simplified invoices.  

Unstructured invoices 

SMEs benefit from about 55% of the burden reduction due to the more widespread use of 
unstructured  e-invoicing,  while  the  rest  goes  to  large  enterprises,  even  though  they 
represent about 0.2% of the overall business population. This is due to structural factors, 
and,  most  importantly,  to  the  fact  that  large  firms  issue  a  disproportionately  higher 
number  of  invoices,  namely  41%  of  the  total  volume.  All  in  all,  SMEs  and  micro-
companies benefited, on average, from savings on the issuance of e-invoices of about 
EUR 110 over four years. The benefits for large companies instead amounted to about 
EUR 120 000 per year.  

The  evaluation  shows  that  SMEs  and  micro  companies  using  e-invoicing  tend  to  stick 
with  the  simplest  solutions  (i.e.  PDFs  via  email),  since  the  potential  benefits  hardly 
justify, for most companies, the purchase of more automated solutions. 

Regulatory cost savings generated by SME-dedicated measures  

Cash  accounting.,  The  evaluation  study  estimated  that  about  60,000  additional  micro 
enterprises benefitted of the cash accounting scheme thanks to the SID32. The reasons for 
such  a  limited  uptake  are  twofold.  On  one  side,  opting  for  the  cash  accounting  regime 
requires an adjustment to the accountancy process, which may result in a higher advisor’s 
fees. On the other side, the financial cost savings from cash accounting are very limited 
for a typical micro company. Indeed, in normal times, the financial relief is limited to the 
first tax period. Consequently, overall cost savings due to the higher uptake of the cash 
accounting scheme generated by the SID have been estimated at EUR 33 million over 
the 2014-2017 period, or about EUR 550 per micro enterprise. 

Simplified  invoicing.  The  changes  introduced  by  the  SID  to  the  simplified  invoice 
regime led four countries33 to introduce it, and sixteen more to enlarge its scope. In terms 
of uptake, the use of simplified invoices varies across countries, and it is largely limited 
to specific industries, such as accommodation and restaurants, retail trade, petrol stations, 
and transport services. 

A  simplified  invoice  allows  micro  companies  to  save  between  EUR 0.5  (if  customers’ 
data  are  to  be  included)  and  EUR 2.2  per  invoice  issued.  Given  the  uncertainty  on  the 
real  diffusion  of  simplified  invoices,  annual  savings  have  been  estimated  to  fall  in  the 
EUR 22-70 million range, with a central value of EUR 38 million34. 

32   This  figure  is  based  on  the  current  uptake  in  the  EU  countries  in  which  the  cash  accounting  scheme  was 

introduced or expanded. 
Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy, and Malta. 
See section 5.4.2 of the Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules.  

33 
34 

20 

 
                                                 
5.2.5  Tax control and VAT fraud 

The effects of the SID on VAT fraud and evasion have been analysed by testing the link 
between two mechanisms: i) by promoting the use of e-invoice, the Directive might have 
improved the organisation of tax control activities e.g. by shortening the duration of VAT 
audits or increasing the number of audits and ii) the different implementation modalities 
at national level might have had an impact on the outcomes of tax control activities, the 
level of VAT compliance and irregularities detected. 

The  possible  impacts  of  the  SID  have  been  assessed  with  respect  to  the  following 
indicators:  on  the  one  hand  the  adjusted  VAT  Gap,  and  on  the  other  hand  the number 
and value of detected VAT irregularities35.  

Impact of the Directive on the organisation of tax control activities 

Ideally,  the  SID  could  have  led  to  the  shortening  of  the  average  duration  of  VAT-
related  audits  because  of  the  more  widespread  use  of  e-invoicing.  However,  the  data 
received from five countries on the audits the year before and after the entering into force 
of the SID show that the average duration of the VAT-related audits did not decrease.  

Impact of the SID on VAT compliance 

To assess if and to what extent the implementation modalities of the SID have affected 
the fight  against VAT fraud, two specific impacts have been analysed.  Firstly, whether 
the  relaxation  of  invoicing  requirements  was  detrimental  to  tax  control.  Secondly, 
whether  the  relaxation  of  e-invoicing  requirements  positively  affected  tax  control 
activities.  

The study demonstrated that the SID had no considerable impact on the level of controls 
undertaken, on the number and value of VAT irregularities discovered and on the level of 
VAT compliance36.  

5.3 

Efficiency 

This section presents the analysis of the regulatory costs and cost savings generated by 
the Directive.  

The following  general  considerations  apply throughout  the subsequent  analysis:  firstly, 
except for the financial cost savings from cash accounting, all the other regulatory costs 
and cost savings are of an administrative nature. Secondly, all administrative costs and 
cost savings analysed are considered administrative burdens. The cost savings  concern 
additional  or  unnecessary  activities  to  the  Business-as-Usual  (BAU)  factor  which  is 
considered as 0%. For more details on the calculations of the costs and burdens and the 
analytical methods, please see Annex 3.  

35   The VAT Gap is an aggregate measuring of non-compliance, defined as the difference between the expected and 
actual VAT revenues. It is usually expressed as percentage of the VAT total tax liability. The number of VAT 
irregularities  is  the  change  in  irregularities  between  the  last  year  before  transposition  of  the  SID  and  the  last 
available year. 

36   See section 5.5. of the Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules.  

21 

 
                                                 
5.3.1  The change in the administrative burdens generated by the provisions on e-

invoicing 

The main effect of the Directive in terms of e-invoicing uptake has been a broader use 
of unstructured e-invoices. This means that, today, a larger number of companies issue 
and receive unstructured e-invoices compared to the situation prior to the Directive, and 
that, within each company, a  larger share of invoices  is  issued/received in  unstructured 
electronic form.   

Issuing an unstructured invoice 

The invoice issuance process is made up of three stages: collection of the customer and 
transaction data, drafting of the invoice and its delivery. 

Collection of customer and transaction data37. An invoice includes two sets of data: (i) 
the customer data, e.g. his/her name, address, VAT number where required; and (ii) the 
transaction data, e.g. the description of the goods/services provided, the taxable amount, 
the  applicable  VAT  rate,  exemption,  or  regime,  the  clauses  that  need  to  be  mentioned, 
and the VAT due. 

Drafting  the  invoice.  This  activity  consists  in  inputting  the  data  collected  into  the 
invoice. It can be carried out by hand, with the help of a non-dedicated software (such as 
a  word  processor  or  a  spreadsheet),  via  a  web  portal,  or  automatically  by  means  of  an 
invoicing solution or an ERP module. 

Delivering  the  invoice  to  the  client.  An  unstructured  e-invoice  can  be  delivered  by 
sending an email with an attached document (e.g. PDF) or with a web link from which 
the invoice can be downloaded, or by uploading the document into a web portal. 

In terms of invoicing process, the evaluation tested the four sizes of companies (micro, 
small,  medium,  large)  against  four  main  types  of  invoicing  processes.  These  processes 
are the following: 

  Basic invoicing. Companies do not have an internal invoicing solution and issue 
their  invoices  either  by  hand  or  using  non-dedicated  software  (such  as  a  word 
processor or a spreadsheet). 

  Invoicing solutions. These companies have an internal invoicing solution, either 
a  self-standing  software  or  platform,  or  a  module  integrated  in  their  Enterprise 
Resource  Planning  (ERP)  system.  The  solution  can  have  various  degrees  of 
automation. 

  Service providers. These companies make use of an external service provider for 
some or most of the activities. The level of automation can vary significantly. 

  Mixed bag. These companies use several of the solutions described above. 

The  distribution  of  the  above  groups  among  the  companies  varies  with  the  number  of 
invoices issued, and, thus, with the business size. Still a small share of micro companies 
adopt dedicated invoicing solutions, and few large companies still rely on basic invoicing 
processes. The table below shows the distribution of companies across the 16 segments. 

37 

Both customer and transaction data can be retrieved either automatically, e.g. if the company has an ERP system 
that draws from the company’s internal databases, or manually by an accountant. 

22 

 
                                                 
Size class 

Micro 

Small 

Medium 

Basic  
invoicing  
64% 

Invoicing  
solution 
13% 

Service 
provider 
21% 

31% 

20% 

21% 

21% 

41% 

48% 

Mixed bag 

Total 

2% 

7% 

11% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Large 
Source: Study on the evaluation of Invoicing Rules: authors’ elaboration based on business survey and targeted consultation. 

100% 

49% 

26% 

17% 

8% 

The evaluation shows that there are neither one-off nor recurrent costs specifically linked 
to issuing an unstructured e-invoice. This is because the licensing cost of the software to 
draft the invoice, create a PDF file, as well as the internet connection can be regarded as 
part of the company’s overall activity.  

Two  cost  savings  are  generated  by  a  company  when  an  invoice  is  no  longer  issued  on 
paper but as an unstructured e-invoice, namely 1) personnel’s time because of the faster 
delivery for unstructured e-invoices and 2) postage and printing costs. These savings are 
estimated at about EUR 3.2 per invoice.  

The analytical model used for the evaluation considers that the SID generated two further 
savings: 1) resulting from a higher number of companies which adopted unstructured e-
invoices  –  the  additional  population  effect  2)  resulting  from  the  fact  that  within  each 
company  the  share  of  unstructured  e-invoices  has  grown  over  the  years  –  the  internal 
company effect. Both savings have been measured for each of the 16 segments across the 
2014-2017 period, while the year 2014 was taken as a baseline38.  

Total  savings  were  estimated  by  multiplying  the  number  of  additional  unstructured  e-
invoices compared to the baseline year by the saving per occurrence, per each segment. 
In  2017,  estimated  annual  cost  savings  from  unstructured  e-invoices  issuance 
amounted  to  about  EUR 500 million,  while  in  the  overall  period  the  Directive  is 
estimated to have generated almost EUR 920 million cost savings at EU level39.  

Receipt of an unstructured invoice 

Receiving an unstructured invoice is made up of three main stages:  

  Invoice reception, directly from the supplier or through a service provider.  
  Invoice  data  checking.  This  activity  consists  in  the  formal  verification  of  the 

invoice data. 

  Invoice data entering. This is done by manually inputting the invoice data into a 
company’s  financial  records  or  ERP  system,  or  extracting  the  data  through  an 
Optical Character Recognition (OCR)40 technology integrated with the ERP.  

Cost savings per occurrence. The cost for receiving unstructured e-invoices is essentially 
equivalent  to  receiving  paper  ones,  as  it  requires  a  similar  number  of  activities  to  be 
performed  in  a  similar  way,  mostly  manually.  However,  the  receipt  of  unstructured  e-

For more details see section 6.1.1. of the Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules.  

38   For details of calculations see section 6.1.1. of the Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules.  
39  
40   OCR  technology  allows  software  to  interpret  machine  printed  text  on  scanned  images.  Invoice  Processing 
Software uses OCR technology and page layout analysis to automatically identify the common data elements in 
an invoice, such as vendor, date, amount, invoice number, line item data, etc. Invoice Processing applications are 
built  using  the  same  technology  as  data  extraction  applications,  but  have  been  specifically  configured  to 
recognize Invoices since they are one of the most common documents that companies need to automate. 

23 

 
                                                 
invoices can generate some time savings in case firms use Optical Character Recognition 
(OCR) solutions. This is because paper invoices must be scanned before being sent to the 
OCR software and often require manual review while PDF invoices can be sent directly 
to the OCR software. The amount of cost savings, based on the average EU hourly salary 
of a clerk has been assessed at EUR 0.98/invoice.   

Total savings generated by the SID for receiving unstructured invoices were estimated by 
multiplying  the  number  of  additional  e-invoices  received  by  companies  adopting  the 
OCR per occurrence over the 2014-2017 period. It appeared that the implementation of 
an OCR is justifiable only when a large volume of invoices is processed, so micro and 
small  companies  were  excluded.  The  estimated  annual  cost  savings  amounted  to  about 
EUR 3.4 million in 2017 and to about EUR 6 million in the period 2015-201741.  

5.3.2  Administrative burdens and savings 

Issuing an invoice for cross-border transactions 

The  issuance  of  a  cross-border  invoice  requires  the  same  activities  as  for  domestic 
invoices, but the invoicing process and the resulting document can be different from the 
domestic ones for the following reasons: 

  Business reasons. These include, for instance, the possibility that it may be more 

cumbersome to retrieve customer data. 

  Applicable VAT regimes. Certain cross-border transactions are subject to specific 
VAT regimes therefore, the resulting invoice will have to reflect such a specific 
regime and include the clauses mandated by Article 226 of the VAT Directive. 
  Specific  invoicing  rules.  Cross-border  transactions  are  also  subject  to  specific 

invoicing rules, which have been amended by the SID.  

Obviously,  the  difference  between  domestic  and  cross-border  invoices  due  to  business 
reasons do not generate costs or cost savings that can be attributed to the Directive, or to 
the  VAT  rules.  As  for  the  applicable  VAT  regimes,  the  cost  and  cost  savings  for 
complying  with  the  revised  Article 226  were  considered.  With  respect  to  specific 
invoicing  rules,  the  cost  and  cost  savings  due  to  the  applicable  invoicing  regime 
(Article 219a)  and  the  uniform  time  limit  for  intra-EU  transactions  (Article 222)  were 
taken into account in the analysis.  

Article 226  –  Invoice  content.  The  SID  introduced  a  number  of  standard  clauses  for 
certain  regimes applicable to  cross-border transactions.  In particular the  clause ‘reverse 
charge’, applicable to most of the cross-border B2B provisions of services, can be used, 
removing  the  need  to  make  reference  to  national  or  EU  legal  provisions.  However, 
according  to  VAT  practitioners  and  business  stakeholders,  the  revised  Article 226  did 
not result in either significant costs or savings for companies. 

Article 219a – Applicable invoicing rules. The article did not produce significant costs 
and savings since the measure entered into force.  In terms  of cross-border transactions, 
the  vast  majority  of  companies  (more  than  85%  of  the  respondents  to  the  targeted 
consultation) do not issue different invoices for cross-border transactions, except for the 

41   For more details see section 6.1.2. of the Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules. 

24 

 
                                                 
different content due to the applicable VAT regime. When differences exist, the need to 
adapt  to  the  destination  legal  requirements  was  mentioned  only  by  a  minority  of 
companies, and, in particular, by multinationals. 

Article 222  –  Uniform  time  limit  for  intra-EU  transactions.  None  of  the  companies 
with cross-border activities reported any impact from the new provision on the time limit, 
the  awareness  of  which  was  also  limited.  Since  this  provision  hardly  affected  the 
companies’ behaviour, it could generate no significant costs or cost savings. 

In a nutshell, for the issuance of a standard invoice for cross-border transactions, cost and 
savings due to the SID have been assessed as negligible or absent. 

Issuance of a simplified invoice 

The  calculation  of  cost  savings  from  the  issuance  of  simplified  invoices  was  provided 
only  for  7  fieldwork  Member  States42  since  the  data  necessary  for  the  calculations  was 
very  difficult  to  obtain  or  almost  non-existent.  Regarding  the  number  of  simplified 
invoices  or  the  share  of  companies  using  them,  assumptions  had  to  be  made  based  on 
qualitative  feedback  from  business  federations,  VAT  practitioners  and  economic 
operators. There was also limited information on the cost parameters since the business 
survey  and  targeted  consultations  were  not  focusing  on  the  B2C  supplies  (e.g. 
restaurants,  retailers,  providers  of  accommodation),  so  the  gap  had  to  be  filled  via 
qualitative information obtained from VAT practitioners and economic operators. For the 
fieldwork  Member  States,  the  SID  triggered  changes  in  five  of  them,  namely  Italy, 
Romania,  the  Netherlands,  Poland  and  Portugal,  so  the  cost  savings  linked  to  the 
Directive are only valid for these five Member States.  

Regarding  the  population,  it  appeared  that  simplified  invoices  are  used  almost 
exclusively  by  micro  enterprises,  and,  in  particular,  by  those  issuing  paper  or  basic  e-
invoices. From the moment a micro company has an invoicing solution (or uses a service 
provider), the gains from reducing the information content of an invoice are very limited, 
so that it will most likely issue standard invoices for all transactions.  

In  the  five  fieldwork  Member  States  in  which  the  SID  caused  a  legal  change  to  the 
simplified invoicing regime, it is estimated that about 55 million simplified invoices have 
been issued in 2017. Of this, about 36 million of simplified invoices can be attributed to 
the  SID.  Given  the  number  of  simplified  invoices  and  the  saving  per  occurrence43,  this 
translates  into  about  EUR 38 million  burden  savings  for  the  five  fieldwork  Member 
States44. 

Issuance of a self-billing invoice 

The  SID  intervened  on  self-billing  by  removing  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to 
impose additional requirements other than (i) the prior agreement; and (ii) the acceptance 
of the invoice45. These requirements were a possible source of burdens for both domestic 

The monetary ssavings per occurrence were estimated between EUR 0.5 and EUR 2.2. 

42   Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Romania.  
43 
44   For details on the calculations see section 6.2.2. of the Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules.  
45 

The requirement that the invoice is issued ‘in the name and on behalf of the taxable person’ may be imposed; 
however, this generates no additional costs or cost savings. 

25 

 
                                                 
and cross-border transactions. Seven countries had such requirements in place, such as 
the duty to notify the tax authority of the prior agreement, to ask for an authorisation, or 
to  have  the  statement  notarised.  Five  of  these  Member  States  have  removed  these 
requirements (Estonia, Hungary, Malta, Poland, and Romania). 

According  to  the  evidence  gathered  from  two  fieldwork  Member  States  –  Poland  and 
Romania - the removal of the notification and the authorisation procedures only slightly 
reduced the administrative burdens.  

The  cost  savings  at  aggregate  level  were  estimated  as  negligible  because  of  the 
following considerations: a) the process did not  change much since most of self-billing 
agreements are still entered in written form, even in countries where it is not mandatory; 
b)  the  geographical  scope  is  limited  to  five  Member  States  and  c)  the  number  of 
companies entering in those agreements is very limited (mainly very large manufacturing 
companies). This limited amount of savings was also confirmed by the few stakeholders 
which had some direct experience with self-billing.  

Financial cost savings due to cash accounting46 

The financial cost savings arise because cash accounting taxpayers are not obliged to pay 
VAT  before  receiving  the  related  payment  from  their  customers,  hence  pre-financing 
costs do not occur. When the payment duration is longer than the time granted for paying 
the VAT after the end of the tax period, the VAT taxable person has to pre-finance part 
of its VAT due, which can be done either through loaning money from a bank at a certain 
interest  rate,  or  by  using  its  own  resources,  and  thus  bearing  the  opportunity  cost  of 
capital. The savings of these financial costs represent the cost savings attributable to the 
introduction of the cash accounting scheme.  

Out  of  the  22  Member  States  applying  cash  accounting  for  micro  companies,  late 
payments pose a problem in 15 countries. Further attribution was based on whether and 
to what extent the SID caused changes in the national legislation. As a result five further 
Member States47 were excluded from the analysis.    

The  financial  cost  savings  generated  through  the  cash  accounting  scheme  that  can  be 
attributed to the SID have been estimated at about EUR 33 million over the 2014-2017 
period for the ten Member States48 where changes had an impact. This would mean 
the  cost  saving  of  about  EUR 550  per  each  cash  accounting  taxable  person.  Additional 
cost  savings  could  arise  in  specific  circumstances,  but  it  is  impossible  to  assess  them 
quantitatively. 

The  taxable  persons  who  opt  for  the  cash  accounting  scheme  incur  additional  costs. 
Introducing  VAT  cash  accounting  implies  that  taxable  persons  need  to  monitor 
payments,  a  task  that  would  not  be  done  otherwise.  When  the  accountancy  records  are 

46   When the payment duration is longer that the time granted for paying the VAT after the end of the tax period, the 
VAT taxable person has to pre-finance part of its VAT due, which can be done either through borrowing money 
from a bank at a certain interest rate, or using its own resources, and thus bearing the opportunity cost of capital. 
The  savings  of  these  financial  costs  represent  the  cost  savings  attributable  to  the  introduction  of  the  cash 
accounting scheme.  

47   Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Poland and Slovenia.  
48   Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia.  

26 

 
 
                                                 
done  internally  the  additional  costs  can  be  limited.  However,  when  the  accountancy 
obligations  are  kept  by  an  external  tax  advisor  –  as  is  the  case  for  most  of  the  cash 
accounting taxable persons - this could increase the advisory fees49.  

5.3.3  Regulatory costs and costs savings 

The evaluation  tested the assumption that the SID may have caused regulatory costs to 
tax  authorities,  which  had  to  adapt  to  the  new  rules,  and  to  enforce  them  on  economic 
operators.  These  costs  are  incurred  because  of  the  need  to  train  the  personnel  to  the 
revised provisions, to buy IT equipment to verify e-invoices, or because of changes to the 
operational costs of conducting e.g. risk analysis or tax audits. 

According  to  tax  authorities,  the  costs  for  the  above  activities  are  non-existent  or 
negligible.  This  was  confirmed  during  the  discussions  with  tax  authorities  in  the 
fieldwork Member States. Tax authorities explained that the new rules mostly concerned 
economic operators and hardly affected the way in which tax authorities function.  

5.4 

Coherence 

This Section presents the analysis of the coherence of the SID, namely to what extent the 
SID is consistent with other EU policies and initiatives in the field of VAT and in related 
areas.  

5.4.1  Coherence with other pieces of EU legislation 

The consistency of the Directive was assessed with respect to five EU legislative areas. 
The figure below provides an overview of the results of the areas which were identified 
through the stakeholders’ feedback and desk research. 

Figure  4  –  Public  consultation  and  targeted  consultation  of  tax  authorities,  VAT 
practitioners and service providers 

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Negative

Partly Negative

Neutral or Positive

Public consultation and targeted consultation of tax authorities, VAT practitioners and service providers 

49  More  details  on  the  calculation  of  cash  accounting  costs  can  be  found  in  Section  6.2.4  of  the  Study  on  the 

Evaluation of Invoicing Rules. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
Accountancy rules (Directive 2013/34) 

The VAT invoice is also relevant for accountancy rules. Accountancy rules are regulated 
by national legislation, international rules as well as by the Accounting Directive which 
aims  at  coordinating  the  national  rules  on  financial  statements50.  However,  the 
Accounting Directive never makes an explicit reference to invoices, to invoicing rules, or 
to the VAT legislation51. The majority of stakeholders, namely more than 70% of them, 
consider that the accountancy and VAT rules are not in conflict52.  

However, some practical issues were identified by stakeholders. The most important one 
is the probationary value of an e-invoice. The VAT legislation establishes the legal value 
of an e-invoice, and makes clear that, subject to the requirements on I&A, it should be 
treated  equally to  a paper invoice. However, the  same principle was not  uniformly  and 
immediately  replicated  under  the  accountancy  rules.  In  particular,  a  few  stakeholders 
voiced the concern that until recently an e-invoice would have had a lower probationary 
value for accounting purposes (or in courts, for civil litigation), up to not being accepted 
as  a  probationary  means  for  certain  controversies.  Another  issue  raised  was  the 
discrepancy  between  the  time  at  which  the  transaction  must  be  registered  under 
accounting  rules  and  the  time  of  the  VAT  chargeability.  However,  stakeholders 
confirmed that such discrepancy would arise only in a very limited number of cases.  

Consumer protection rules 

VAT invoicing rules and consumer protection rules can only have a limited interaction. 
Such a small overlap does not create obstacles or uncertainty for economic operators or 
tax authorities53. The main reason for the limited interaction is that the scope of the two 
legislative areas is mostly non-overlapping.  

Data protection rules of Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) 

About  a  quarter  of  the  interviewees54  consider  that  the  GDPR  may  have  a  negative 
interaction  with  the  VAT  invoicing  rules.  Most  of  the  economic  operators  and  VAT 
practitioners  consider  that  including  personal  data  on  invoices  poses  no  problem  with 
respect  to  GDPR  –  as  long  as  it  is  not  sensitive  data,  such  as  medical  information.  If 
certain  invoice  fields  were  considered  as  personal  data,  the  impact  for  both  economic 
operators  and  e-invoice  service  providers  would  be  significant.  It  would  require 
restructuring  the  invoice  processing  architecture  and,  most  likely,  would  lead  to  the 
exclusion of any personal information from the invoice. 

Storage period. Since storage of invoices is mandatory because of the VAT Directive and 
the national norms, it is also lawful from a GDPR perspective. However, this also implies 
that, when the national storage period expires, invoices containing personal data should 
be destroyed, since their conservation is no longer necessary for complying with a legal 
obligation. To avoid any data protection risk, companies and service providers may have 

50   Directive 2013/34/EU, in Article 1(1). 
51   The Directive regulates the publication and the content of financial statements, while the rules on the supporting 
documents, including proofs of revenues and costs such as invoices, are largely left to the national legislator. 

52   Data from the targeted consultation. 
53   Targeted consultation data (95% of stakeholders expressed a positive or neutral assessment). 
54   Data from the targeted consultation. 

28 

 
                                                 
to delete invoices once the storage period is elapsed, even though they may want to keep 
it for business reasons. It is unclear whether this will be the case, especially considering 
that the minimum storage period for VAT invoices is of five years, and thus any problem 
may occur as of May 2023 only.  

Rules on e-signature and EDI 

E-signatures.  E-signatures  are  regulated  by 
the  eIDAS  Regulation  (electronic 
IDentification,  Authentication  and  trust  Services),  which  replaced  the  e-signature 
Directive.  The  eIDAS  Regulation  aims  at  establishing  common  rules  for  the  Internal 
Market for electronic trust services, by ensuring their recognition and workability across 
borders.  It  provides  norms  for  (i)  the  certification  authority,  i.e.  the  entity  issuing  the 
certificate;  (ii)  the  secure  signature  certification  devices  (e.g.  the  smart  card,  token  or 
software that creates the signature); as well as (iii) specific services, such as e-signatures, 
e-seals, time stamping, and registered e-delivery services. 

With  respect  to  I&A  requirements,  two  services  are  specifically  relevant:  (i)  the  e-
signatures,  which  are  explicitly  mentioned  in  the  Directive,  and  (ii)  the  e-seals.  While 
both  services  can  be  used  to  certify  the  author  and  the  integrity  of  an  electronic 
document, the e-signatures  also  attest  the willingness of an individual (and thus  can be 
used, for instance, to sign e-contracts).  

The eIDAS Regulation grants certain legal effects to the e-signatures and the e-seals. E-
signatures  are  admissible  in  court  and  QES  shall  be  treated  equally  to  handwritten 
signatures.  Furthermore,  QES,  unlike  the  basic  and  advanced  ones,  shall  be  mutually 
recognised  across  countries.  E-seals  are  admissible  in  courts,  treated  equally  to  paper-
based certification and, most relevant for e-invoicing, provide users with a presumption 
of  integrity  and  correctness  of  the  sealed  data.  More  than  75%  of  tax  authorities,  VAT 
practitioners and e-invoice service providers claimed during the targeted consultation that 
no issue of coherence exists between the eIDAS Regulation and the VAT invoicing rules. 

Directive 2014/55 on the use of e-invoicing in public procurement 

The  Directive  on  the  use  of  e-invoicing  in  public  procurement  is  the  piece  of  EU 
legislation  bearing  the  closest  relation  with  the  VAT  e-invoicing  rules.  This  is 
acknowledged in Article 9 of the former, where it is explicitly stated that ‘[this Directive 
is  without  prejudice  to  the  provisions  of  Directive  2006/112/EC’],  in  order  to  prevent 
possible conflicts. 

According to the Directive 2014/55, it will be mandatory for all public entities to receive 
and  process  e-invoices  complying  with  the  European  standard  (EN  16931)  by  April, 
201955.  An  increasing  number  of  Member  States  (13)  went  further,  by  requiring  that 
public entities accept only e-invoices. The format of which can be based on the European 
standard  introduced  by  Directive  2014/55,  as  well  as  on  other  national  or  international 
formats. 

55  

Please compare  Article 7 of  Directive 2014/55/EU. With regard to their sub-central contracting authorities and 
contracting  entities,  Member  States  may  postpone  the  application  until  18  April  2020,  i.e.  30  months  after 
publication of the reference of the European standard on electronic invoicing.  

29 

 
                                                 
The  most  relevant  difference  between  the  VAT  Directive  and  Directive  2014/55  is  the 
divergent  e-invoice  definition  adopted.  Notwithstanding  the  different  definitions,  in 
practice,  the  two  acts  serve  different  purposes  so  they  are  not  in  contradiction.  In  the 
words  of  a  tax  authority,  “VAT  provisions  remain  untouched  by  the  different  legal 
definition of Directive 2014/55/EU, and thus the latter creates no issues”. This is indeed 
confirmed by stakeholders.  

5.4.2  Coherence with other EU initiatives in the field of invoicing 

The European Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Electronic Invoicing (EMSFEI) and Fiscalis, 
aim at creating a common knowledge and sharing of best practices, thus facilitating the 
harmonisation of rules and the adoption of e-invoicing. The former concerns both private 
operators and public authorities, while the latter concerns tax authorities only.  

European Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Electronic Invoicing (EMSFEI)56 

A number of EMSFEI contributions helped to clarify the national implementation and 
application  of  the  SID.  These  include,  in  particular,  the  2013  study  on  the  Directive 
implementation  and  the  remaining  cross  border  issues57,  and  the  2017  follow-up  on 
implementation and regulatory issues58.  

In line with these findings, the targeted consultation showed that the stakeholders have a 
positive opinion of EMSFEI. The quasi-unanimous view of the interviewees is that the 
EMSFEI positively or very positively contributed to the implementation and application 
of  the  VAT  Directive  e-invoicing  rules.  No  critiques  have  been  raised  concerning  its 
interaction with the existing rules.  

Fiscalis programme 

The  Fiscalis  programme  are  a  series  of  multiannual  action  programmes  aimed  at 
supporting the implementation of the EU fiscal policy. The current programme, Fiscalis 
2020,  covers  the  period  2013-202059.  Its  general  objective  consists  of  improving  the 
functioning  of  the  taxation  systems  in  the  Internal  Market,  in  particular,  by  enhancing 
cooperation between the participating countries, their tax authorities and their officials. 

Only  6  out  of  1  100  joint  actions  financed  so  far  by  Fiscalis  2020  were  mainly  and 
directly concerned with e-invoicing rules. The limited relevance of Fiscalis 2020 actions 
for e-invoicing was indeed confirmed by tax authorities during the interviews. 

56   The  EMSFEI  was  established  by  the  European  Commission  in  2011,  by  bringing  together  representatives  of 
national e-invoicing fora and other relevant stakeholders at EU level. It aims at exchanging national experiences 
and best  practices  on  e-invoicing  and  supporting  the  identification  of  measures  to  facilitate  its  adoption  across 
borders.  Since  its  launch  in  2011,  the  Forum  has  turned  out  as  a  key  resource  for  exchanging  data  and  best 
practices,  as  well  as  for  collecting,  compiling,  and  publishing  information  on  the  e-invoicing  uptake,  regimes, 
and barriers in each EU country.  

57   EMSFEI (2013), Solutions for Remaining Cross‐ Border Issues. 
58   EMSFEI (2017), Activity Group on Regulatory Issues, Final Draft report. 
59 

Regulation (EU) No 1286/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an action programme 
to improve the operation of taxation systems in the European Union for the period 2014-2020 (Fiscalis 2020) and 
repealing Decision No 1482/2007/EC. 

30 

 
                                                 
5.4.3  Coherence with other EU strategies 

The  degree  of  alignment  of  the  Directive  with  other  EU  strategies  was  assessed  by 
evaluating  the  consistency  of  their  respective  objectives.  Based  on  the  analysis  of  EU 
policies, the following two strategies were found to deal – sometimes only marginally – 
with e-invoicing: 

  The Single Market Strategy; 
  The Digital Single Market Strategy;  

The Single Market Strategy60 

The  Single  Market  strategy  is  an  EU  overarching  policy,  which  provides  the  general 
direction  for  the  Internal  Market  policies,  as  well  as  a  framework  for  coordinating  an 
array of other sectoral policies (e.g. for energy, trade, capital markets). Its main aim is to 
revive  and  modernise  the  EU  Single  Market,  so  to  improve  its  functioning.  One  of  the 
general objectives of the SID is directly relevant and aligned with the general objective 
of the Single Market Strategy.  

The Digital Single Market Strategy 

The  Digital  Single  Market  Strategy61  is  one  of  the  sectoral  policies  of  the  European 
Commission.  It  covers  the  so-called  Information  and  Communication  Technology 
sectors, i.e. any economic activity related to the Internet, the digital technologies, and the 
communication  networks.  The  Digital  Single  Market  Strategy  specifically  aims  at 
ensuring  that  ‘individuals  and  businesses  can  seamlessly  access  and  exercise  online 
activities under conditions of fair competition, and a high level of consumer and personal 
data  protection,  irrespective  of  their  nationality  or  place  of  residence’62.  A  number  of 
legislative proposals was adopted further to the strategy, among others the new rules on 
VAT e-commerce, the new rules to stop unjustified geo-blocking or the rules on cross-
border parcel delivery services and revised consumer protection rules63.  

The strategy does not explicitly mention e-invoicing rules and policies. At the same time, 
e-invoicing was, and still is, capable of contributing to the interventions spurred by the 
strategy.  In particular, the first  pillar of the strategy aims at  ensuring ‘better access  for 
consumers and businesses’ to the single Market, ensuring the removal of ‘key differences 
between  the  online  and  offline  worlds’  and  the  lowering  of  ‘barriers  to  cross-border 
online activities’. This is aligned to two of the specific objectives of the SID, namely the 
simplification and harmonisation of e-invoicing  rules.  In particular, the  equal  treatment 
mandated  by  the  SID  for  paper  and  e-invoices  matches  very  well  the  need  to  reduce 
differences in how business is conducted online or offline.  

60   COM/2015/0550 final Communication from the Commission Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities 

61 

for people and business. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  on  A  Digital  Single  Market  Strategy  for  Europe,  COM(2015)  192, 
6.5.2015;  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  A  Digital  Single  Market  Strategy  for  Europe  -  Analysis  and 
Evidence, SWD(2015) 100, 6.5.2015.  

62   Communication  from  the  Commission  on  A  Digital  Single  Market  Strategy  for  Europe,  COM(2015)  192, 

6.5.2015. 

63   See for more details the Digital Single Market Strategy.  

31 

 
                                                 
5.5 

EU added value 

This  Section  illustrates  the  assessment  of  the  EU  Added  Value  namely  whether  the 
outcomes and the impacts achieved by the Directive would have been achieved had the 
intervention not taken place at EU level, i.e. by means of national or bilateral policies. 

 The assessment of EU Added Value was carried out regarding the following objectives 
of  the  SID:  i)  the  simplification  of  e-invoicing  and  invoicing  rules;  ii)  the  reduction  of 
regulatory fragmentation of VAT invoicing rules; and iii) the uptake of cash accounting. 
The  assessment  followed  a  quali-quantitative  approach  based  on  the  feedback  from 
stakeholders.  More  specifically,  stakeholders  were  asked  to  state  (using  a  qualitative 
scale) to what extent the objectives would have been achieved in the absence of the SID. 
The qualitative scale was then converted into numerical values and used to estimate the 
probability  that  the  change  would  have  occurred  without  the  SID.  The  complement  to 
this probability rate is the so-called the EU added value (EUAV) factor, i.e. the share of 
outcomes and impacts which have occurred because of the EU intervention.  

5.5.1  Simplification of e-invoicing and invoicing rules 

E-invoicing rules 

By  simplifying  the  applicable  rules,  the  Directive  has  positively  contributed  to  a  more 
widespread  diffusion  of  unstructured  e-invoicing.  The  SID  is  estimated  to  have  added 
1.6 p.p.  to  the  annual  growth  of  the  e-invoicing  uptake  among  micro  companies,  and 
about  0.5 p.p.  for  companies  with  ten  or  more  employees.  This  has,  in  turn,  generated 
about EUR 900 millions of administrative burden savings. 

To assess the EUAV, it was necessary to establish to what extent Member States would 
have  liberalised  e-invoicing  rules  without  the  SID.  So  tax  authorities  and  VAT 
practitioners  were  asked  about  the  occurrence  of  changes  to  the  e-invoicing  rules  and 
30% of them considered that the changes were ‘very likely’ and ‘likely’ to occur. Some 
changes would have occurred in any case as more and more Member States would have 
progressively introduced the liberal approach into their national legislation. However, the 
majority of the stakeholders pointed out at the same time that the main driver of change 
in the VAT area remains the EU legislation, and that fewer Member States would have 
introduced significant reforms if not prompted by the EU policies. The Member States’ 
interventions would have been more limited, both in terms of countries covered and the 
depth of the reforms introduced, should the SID not have been adopted.  

The EUAV factor for the simplification of e-invoicing has been estimated to be 62%. By 
applying this factor, the EUAV on the uptake of unstructured e-invoices can be estimated 
to be between 0.3 and 1 p.p. (depending on the size of the company). This translates into 
about EUR 570 millions of cost savings. 

Invoicing rules 

With respect to the simplification of invoicing rules, the Directive had two main effects: 
it  increased  the  degree  of  legal  certainty  and  it  contributed  to  reducing  administrative 
burdens.  

32 

 
Stakeholders were asked to  assess the relevant  importance of various policy drivers for 
the  simplification  of  the  invoicing  rules.  The  mandatory  provisions  of  the  SID  were 
considered  the  most  important  legislative  driver,  and  the  role  in  the  simplification  of 
invoicing  was  considered  as  positive  or  very  positive  by  the  vast  majority  (87%)  of 
respondents64.  For  the  optional  Directive  provisions  and  the  national  drivers,  the  role 
played was still positively assessed, but at a lower level (positive answers varied between 
60% and 66% of respondents).  

At  least  one  third  of  stakeholders  considered  it  ‘very  likely’  or  ‘likely’  that  the 
simplification would occur without the adoption of the SID.  This could have happened 
for a plurality of reasons as for example internal pressure to fight VAT fraud or a genuine 
simplification  of  national  invoicing  rules.  However,  in  several  Member  States  the 
Directive was instrumental in creating the opportunity for Member States to simplify the 
invoicing  rules  and/or  to  introduce  additional  simplifications,  which  went  beyond  the 
minimum  required  by  the  SID.    Consequently,  the  EUAV  factor  has  been  set  at  60% 
meaning that a large part of the legal certainty would not have been generated without the 
SID.  Specifically  in  the  area  of  simplified  invoice,  the  additional  EU  benefits  can  be 
estimated at about EUR 70 million over the 2014-2017 period65. 

5.5.2  Reduction of regulatory fragmentation 

The Directive generated two main benefits for economic operators: i) the uptake of cross-
border e-invoicing; and ii) harmonisation in the area of invoicing rules.   

The  share  of  stakeholders  considering  that  a  comparable  harmonisation  process  would 
have happened without EU intervention is low (15%). The stakeholders pointed out that, 
while a progressive simplification of invoicing and e-invoicing requirements was likely, 
this would have hardly happened in a fully convergent way. It can thus be concluded that 
the  SID  played  an  important  role  in  smoothening  the  functioning  of  the  Internal 
Market that took place over the last four years. 

5.5.3  Increased uptake of cash accounting 

The possibility to introduce a cash accounting regime targeted to micro enterprises was 
already  available  prior  to  the  SID.  However,  to  make  it  more  interesting  to  Member 
States,  the  SID  introduced  Article 167a,  which  generalised  the  possibility  to  postpone 
both  VAT  payments  and  deduction,  thus  limiting  the  negative  impacts  on  the  public 
budget  cash  flow66.  This  was  possible  also  under  the  previous  rules,  but  an  explicit 
derogation  had  to  be  requested  to  the  VAT  Committee.  After  the  SID  the  number  of 
Member  States  opting  for  this  regime  increased  -  eight  more  countries  introduced  cash 
accounting for micro enterprises, and four more expanded their existing schemes. 

A number of Member States consider that changes would have occurred even without the 
introduction  of  Article  167a  by  the  SID.  However,  this  view  is  not  shared  by  all 
stakeholders,  who  consider  the  likelihood  rate  of  introducing  or  enlarging  the  cash 
accounting scheme without the SID at 45%. The EUAV factor is thus set at 55%. As the 

64   Number of respondents varied between 52 and 62. 
65   The total savings from the simplified invoices are estimated at around 114 million. Since the EUAV factor is set 

at 60%, the EU benefits are calculated as 60% of 114 million giving thus about 70 million.  

66   A negative impact on the public budget cash flow can appear in case VAT payment is postponed while taxable 

person keeps its right of deduction.  

33 

 
                                                 
additional  uptake  of  cash  accounting  caused  by  the  Directive  is  estimated  to  have 
generated  about  EUR 33 millions  (see  section  5.2.4)  of  financial  cost  savings,  the 
additional EU benefits can be estimated at about EUR 18 millions over the 2014-2017 
period. 

34 

 
 
6. 

CONCLUSION 

The evaluation results in a largely positive assessment of the Directive. It contributed to 
the  simplification  and  harmonization  of  invoicing  and  e-invoicing  rules  across  the  EU. 
The Directive had an overall positive contribution to its general policy objectives, namely 
i)  the  reduction  of  the  administrative  burdens  on  businesses,  ii)  the  reduction  of  VAT 
frauds, iii) the proper functioning of the Internal Market and iv) SMEs promotion.  

6.1 

The achievements of the Directive  

In particular, the SID has contributed to foster the (unstructured) e-invoicing uptake, to 
reduce the administrative burdens on businesses, to increase legal certainty for economic 
operators, and more  generally to  support the proper functioning of the  Internal  Market. 
As a main impact, the SID contributed positively to the burden reduction objective and 
has  produced  administrative  burden  savings  of  almost  EUR 1 billion  in  the  2014-17 
period67.  

The major benefits generated by the simplification of the e-invoicing rules are estimated 
to have occurred because of the e-invoicing rules being enacted at EU level. The higher 
uptake  of  e-invoicing  attributed  to  the  Directive  is  the  main  driver  of  the  reduction  in 
administrative  burdens.  The  issuance  of  a  higher  number  of  unstructured  e-invoices  is 
estimated to have generated about EUR 920 million of cost savings over the 2015-2017 
period. At the same time, the unstructured format allows achieving only a (minor) part of 
the potential savings from e-invoicing, thanks to a quicker issuance process, in particular 
for  data  handling  and  the  elimination  of  paper  and  postage  costs.  Only  automatically-
processable  structured  e-invoices  allow  for  a  full  (or  quasi-full)  automation  of  the 
invoicing process. Consequently, the estimated amount of savings generated by the SID 
in  this  area  is  considerably  below  the  potential  EU  aggregate  gains  from  e-invoicing 
discussed  in  the  literature.  This  is  the  outcome  of  the  conscious  policy  decision  of  the 
SID  not  to  differentiate  between  structured  and  unstructured  e-invoices  and  thus  not  to 
push for structured e-invoicing.  

A number of benefits in the area of invoicing rules also occurred because of the action at 
EU  level.  The  revision  of  the  Directive  improved  the  legal  clarity  and  certainty  of 
invoicing  rules  and  smoothened  the  working  of  the  Internal  Market  for  cross  border 
operators  thereby  contributing  positively  to  the  achievement  of  one  of  the  SID’s 
objective.  These  results  were  appreciated  by  stakeholders.  At  the  same  time,  these 
changes led to only negligible burden reduction and had no significant impact on costs.  

The contribution of the Directive to its objective of reducing VAT fraud and improving 
controls was limited. The Directive had no or negligible effects on the effectiveness and 
efficiency  of  tax  control  activities.  Tax  authorities  consider  the  provisions  of  the  SID 

67   The 1 billion cost savings consists of the following: about 920 million due to issuance of unstructured 
e-invoices, 6 million due to receipt of unstructured e-invoices, 114 million due to simplified invoices 
and 33 million from cash accounting. See sections 5.2.2, 5.3.1., 5.2.4 of this Staff Working Document. 

35 

 
 
                                                 
aligned with their needs, even though invoicing rules do not play a major role in the fight 
against tax evasion compared to other rules.  

The SID had a positive impact on the achievement of the last objective of the Directive, 
namely  SMEs  promotion.The  SID  benefited  smaller  companies  because  of  the  burden 
reduction  generated  by  simpler  e-invoicing  solutions.  The  SID  was  a  reason  why 
additional Member States opted for or enlarged the cash accounting scheme over the last 
five  years.  At  the  same  time  the  uptake  of  the  cash  accounting  regime  remains  limited 
and thus also its impact. The functioning of the invoicing rules is positively evaluated by 
stakeholders, signalling no emerging issues. The main hindering factor remains that, for 
most  of  micro  companies,  benefits  are  small,  and  that  only  certain  specific  companies 
find cash accounting truly beneficial. 

6.2 

Shortcomings of the Directive 

Only a very few aspects of the SID were identified as potentially problematic, but they 
were not assessed either by businesses or by Member States as very significant.  

In particular, with reference to the current e-invoicing regulatory framework, the BCAT 
option included in the SID to prove the e-invoice I&A is considered by the stakeholders 
as lacking clarity.  

Some  stakeholders  complained  about  the  difficulties  and  costs  of  compliance  with 
archiving rules. The complexity and regulatory fragmentation of the archiving rules for e-
invoices has increased unevenly since the transposition of the SID. This relates to certain 
countries  having  adopted  very  detailed  rules  on  the  e-archiving  of  fiscal  documents, 
which obviously also apply to e-invoices. The area of archiving was however not covered 
by the adopted SID68.  

Several  stakeholders  that  operate  cross-border  point  to  an  insufficient  level  of 
harmonisation in other areas. In particular, the additional e-reporting requirements which 
have  been  and  are  being  imposed  by  several  Member  States  in  a  non-harmonised  way 
and the national formats and platforms for exchanging B2G e-invoices69.  

Following  the  adoption  of  Directive  2014/55,  mandatory  e-invoicing  requirements  for 
B2G transactions have been introduced by several Member States over the last five years 
in  a  rather  disharmonized  way.  However,  the  situation  is  still  in  a  flux  given  that  the 
harmonised  standard  (hEN)  has  recently  been  adopted  (in  April  2018),  and  that  certain 
provisions of Directive 2014/55 normally entered into force as of April 2019. More time 
is  required  for  the  effects  of  the  harmonised  standard  to  occur,  in  order  to  consider 
whether and to what extent the current differences remain a barrier to trade. 

68   As detailed in Sections 4.4. and 4.7. of the Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules. 
69  As detailed in Section  4.7 of the Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules. 

36 

 
 
                                                 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1.  Lead DG – DG TAXUD 

The initiative was planned under PLAN/2017/1293-TAXUD.   

2.  The  evaluation  was  supported  by  an  independent  study  carried  out  by  a 

consortium led by Economisti Associati.  

The  contract  with  the  contractor  was  signed  on  3 November  2017.  The  Final 
Report was submitted in January 2019 and published in February 2019. 

3.  The  first  meeting  of  the  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  took  place  on 
20 June 2019 to inform the members about the upcoming study and the Terms of 
Reference. Two meetings with the ISSG took place (on the First  Interim Report 
and  on  the  Final  Report).  The  remaining  Reports  of  the  Study  were  sent  to  the 
members of the ISSG for comments, which were largely taken into account by the 
contractor.  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

The consultation  collected data  and evidence to  evaluate the invoicing  rules introduced 
by the SID. To this aim the consultation gathered the views  of the stakeholders on two 
topics: firstly, how the SID met its set objectives and to what extent the invoicing rules 
are  still  aligned  with  stakeholders'  needs  and  secondly,  the  stakeholders'  views  on 
possible improvements. 

The consultation process consisted of: 

1.  Familiarisation interviews; 
2.  Business survey 
3.  Targeted Consultation in fieldwork Member States; 
4.  Targeted Consultation – E-mail survey of Tax Authorities; 
5.  Targeted Consultation – E-mail survey of VAT Practitioners; 
6.  A  public  consultation  addressed  to  all  stakeholders  and  members  of  the 

public.  

1. 

Familiarisation interviews 

The  familiarisation  interviews  were  conducted  during  the  inception  phase  (between 
December  2017  and  January  2018),  to  gather  a  better  understanding  of  the  overall 
functioning  of  the  Directive,  and  elicit  comments  and  opinions  from  the  key  EU-level 
stakeholders and experts regarding the legal changes introduced and their possible effects 
as  well  as  implementation  issues.  A  total  of  14  stakeholders  were  interviewed  face-to-
face or via telephone, based on semi-structured checklists.  

The  interviews  conducted  involved  different  categories  of  stakeholders,  namely  eight 
VAT  practitioners  or  federations  thereof,  two  EU  business  federations,  two  service 
providers  or  federations  thereof,  and  two  other  stakeholders.  In  accordance  with  the 
Assignment’s  proposal,  the  key  targets  for  the  familiarisation  interviews  were  the 
members  of  the  various  EU-level  expert  groups,  such  as  the  EU  VAT  Forum  and  the 
VAT Expert Group.  

There were also two focus group discussions, namely: (i) one with some members of the 
European  Multi-Stakeholder  Forum  on  e-Invoicing,  organised  with  the  support  of  DG 
GROW  at  the  margins  of  the  Forum’s  official  meeting  held  on  9 December  2017  in 
Brussels; and (ii) one organised within the framework of BusinessEurope’s VAT Group 
meeting,  with  the  participation  of  eight  national  business  associations  and  six 
multinational  corporations.  Finally,  a  two-day  working  meeting  was  held  in  Stockholm 
with the legal  compliance team of Trustweaver, one of the leading e-invoicing services 
providers in the EU. 

2. 

Business Survey 

The Business Survey was carried out in eight Member States  – France, Germany, Italy, 
the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Romania,  Spain  and  Sweden.  The  selection  of  the  Member 

38 

 
 
States  took  into  account  the  geographical  diversity  of  EU  regions  and  the  different 
national  e-invoicing  frameworks.  The  deployment  of  the  survey  was  entrusted  to 
YouGov.  The  questionnaire  consisted  of  a  small  number  of  close-ended,  matrix 
questions, aimed at gathering information on: (i) the volume of invoices and e-invoices 
annually exchanged, (ii) the types of e-invoice exchanged and the starting year of each e-
invoicing  process;  (iii)  the  most  commonly  used  e-invoicing  solutions  and  (iv)  the 
remaining barriers to e-invoicing adoption, including a detailed review of the legal ones.  

The business survey covered some 250 respondents in each of the eight countries, thus a 
total of 2,007 completed questionnaires. The majority (82%) of respondents were SMEs 
(including micro, small and medium-size companies), corresponding to  a total of 1,637 
firms.  In addition, 370 large companies with more than 250 employees took part in the 
questionnaire.  

3. 

Targeted consultation in fieldwork Member States 

The  fieldwork  targeted  consultation  has  been  carried  out  in  seven  selected  Member 
States:  France,  Germany,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Poland,  and  Romania.  The 
sample  of  Member  States  was  selected  on  the  basis  of  their  geographical  location, 
country size, impact of the Directive and invoices burdensomeness70, as presented in the 
below table.  

MS 

Size 

Requirements 
Invoice   e-Invoicing 

Directive impact 

Invoice  

e-invoicing  

France 

Big 

Strict 

Moderately 
Strict 

Unchanged 

Moderate 
simplification 

Germany 

Big 

Liberal 

Liberal 

Unchanged 

Major 
simplification 

Italy 

Big 

Strict 

Liberal 

Simplified 
introduced 

Major 
simplification 

Portugal 

Medium 

Strict 

Moderately 
Strict 

Simplified 
modified 

Moderate 
simplification 

Poland 

Big 

Liberal 

Liberal 

Self-billing, 
simplified 
modified 

Major 
simplification 

Additional elements 

  Prohibition to use scanned 

PDF invoices for VAT 
deductions recently removed 

  Storage requirements for e-

invoices introduced 

  BCAT with written procedure 

(for large firms)  
  Complex archiving 

requirements in place 
  Cash accounting without 
postponement of VAT 
deduction 

  Complex archiving 

requirements in place  

  Mandatory B2G and 

incoming mandatory B2B 

  Additional e-reporting 

requirements imposed  
  Requirement to have e-

invoicing software certified 
by tax authority 

  Additional e- reporting 
requirements imposed 
  Cash accounting scheme, 

with postponement of VAT 
deduction for customers 

70  

The  four criteria were chosen in order to be as representative as  possible.  On the one hand, to maximise the 
sample  representativeness,  an  appropriate  coverage  of  different  European  regions,  characterised  by  different 
economic  structures  and  development,  business  behaviours  as  well  as  regulatory  frameworks  (geographical 
balance), as well as of Member States with a different dimension (size balance) were taken into consideration. 
On the other hand, in order to focus on countries more informative on the results achieved by the Directive and 
the  remaining  issues,  countries  where  national  VAT  legislation  was  significantly  amended  following  the 
transposition  of  the  Directive  (Directive  impact)  and  with  different  levels  of  burdensomeness  of  national 
requirements (invoicing burdensomeness), as evidenced by the legal mapping, were given a preference.   

39 

 
                                                 
Romania 

Medium 

Liberal 

Liberal 

Netherlands  Medium 

Liberal 

Liberal 

Self-billing, 
simplified 
modified 
Unchanged 

Major 
simplification 

  Cash accounting scheme, 

with postponement of VAT 
deduction for customers 

Unchanged*  

  None 

The interview programme including 152 interviews in each of the seven Member States 
was targeted at:  

the Tax Authority (TA);  

(i) 
(ii)  Business Federations, also including SME federations (BF);  
(iii)  Economic Operators of different sizes and active in a variety of sectors (EO);  
(iv)  e-invoicing and e-archiving Services Providers (SP); and  
(v)  VAT Practitioners and tax advisors (VP).  

The distribution of the interviews is the following: 

Interview type 
Tax Authorities 
Business Federations 
Economic Operators 
Service Providers 
VAT Practitioners 
Other 

Number of interviews 
9  
17 
83 
15 
25 
3 

The interviews were spread geographically as follows71: 

37 

24 

20 

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

18 

15 

15 

12 

7 

3 

1 

DE

FR

IT

NL

PL

PT

RO

Other

EU

MNC

MNC stands for Multinational Corporations 

The  responsiveness  of  economic  operators  varied  across  size  class.  Large  companies 
showed a fair interest in contributing to the evaluation, but SMEs were more difficult to 
reach. In order to ensure a sufficient coverage of all size classes, the Consultant elicited 

71  Multinational Corporation (MNC) 

40 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
the support of various business federations. Eventually, 83 economic operators took part 
in the consultation and SMEs represent a sizable share of about 42%. 

9% 

42% 

Multinationals

Domestic large companies

49% 

SMEs

For  each  of  the  five  types  of  stakeholders  interviewed,  a  tailored  questionnaire  was 
prepared.  For  instance,  while  the  questionnaire  for  business  federations  was  mainly 
aimed  at  discussing  overarching  invoicing  themes  and  issues  affecting  the  majority  of 
companies,  the  questionnaire  for  economic  operators  specifically  focused  on  the 
invoicing practices and regimes in use and their related costs.  

The  majority  of  interviews  (49%)  were  conducted  in  person  through  face-to-face 
meetings.  A  number  of  interviews  took  also  place  through  teleconferences  (20%)  or  in 
writing via an email interaction (31%).  

4. 

Targeted Consultation – E-mail survey of Tax Authorities 

The tax authorities from the non-fieldwork Member States participated to the targeted 
consultation  via  an  e-mail  survey.  Out  of  the  21  non-fieldwork  Member  States,  tax 
authorities from 19 Member States provided responses to the consultation.   

The targeted consultation was designed for three objectives:  

(i) 

(ii) 
(iii) 

validate  the  findings  from  the  legal  mapping,  and,  in  particular,  the  analysis  of 
transposition and implementation;  
collect tax authorities’ opinions to feed the relevant evaluation indicators; and  
collect factual information. 

5. 

Targeted Consultation – E-mail survey of VAT Practitioners 

Another  e-mail  survey  was  targeted  VAT  practitioners.  While,  originally,  the  national 
federations  of  tax  auditors  had  to  be  targeted  by  this  survey,  in  the  familiarisation 
interviews VAT practitioners proved more knowledgeable on the subject matter, and thus 
more  interested  in  participating.  A  total  of  17  contributions  were  received  from  VAT 
Practitioners, in addition to the interviews performed during the fieldwork operations.  

Given their voluntary participation, the questionnaire had been designed as comparably 
shorter than the other data collection tools. The questionnaire focused on  collecting the 
VAT practitioners’ qualitative assessment on a range of topics, and namely: 

(i) 
(ii) 

the appropriateness of the current invoicing rules;  
the  reason  why  certain  specific  invoicing  regimes  have  been  adopted  or  not  by 
businesses;  

(iii)  whether the Directive had an impact on tax control;  
(iv) 

the Directive’s contributions vis-à-vis other drivers; and  

41 

 
 
(v) 

a set of forward looking questions on possible revisions. 

6. 

A  public  consultation  addressed  to  all  stakeholders  and  members  of  the 
public 

The  Public  Consultation  (PC)  was  launched  on  13 June  and  it  remained  open  until 
20 September 2018,  for  a total  of 14 weeks (i.e.  for longer than the usual 12 weeks, to 
take  into  account  the  summer  period).  A  total  of  177  responses  were  received  from  23 
Member States. 

The Public Consultation questionnaire consisted of 56 questions focusing mainly on:, 

(i) 

(ii) 
(iii) 

the respondent’s perception of the issues at stake and of the functioning of the 
Directive;  
the assessment of invoicing and e-invoicing rules; and  
the agreement/disagreement with a number of provisions. 

The overview 

A  total  of  175  valid  responses  were  received  and  were  used  for  the  analysis.  The 
majority  of  respondents  answered  the  PC  in  their  professional  capacity,  while  62 
private  individuals  (PI)  participated  in  their  personal  capacity.  Amongst  professionals, 
the largest group are private enterprises other than consultancies and law firms, with 55 
respondents.  Noteworthy  are  furthermore  the  group  of  professional  and  self-employed 
consultancies or law-firms,  and that of trade, business  or professional  associations with 
35  and  14  respondents  respectively.  Smaller  numbers  have  been  collected  for  NGOs, 
platforms  and  networks  (3  respondents),  research  and  academia  (1),  international  or 
national public authorities (1), and the group of other  respondents (4). Due to their low 
participation,  these  groups  have  been  aggregated  into  the  category  ‘other’  (O)  for  the 
analysis.  

In total, 23 EU Member States are represented within the PC. Respondents answering 
in their professional capacity come from all 23, while private individuals participating are 
resident in 20 Member States. The below table illustrates the countries of respondents.  

of 

of 

Country of residence or organisation’s country of establishment 
Geographical  origin  of 
respondent 
Germany 
Greece 
Portugal 
Spain 
Bulgaria 
Denmark 
France 
Italy 
Slovenia 
Slovak Republic 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 
Cyprus 

Number 
Geographical  origin 
respondents 
of respondent 
3 
Poland 
2 
Austria 
2 
Finland 
2 
Hungary 
2 
Sweden 
1 
Estonia 
1 
Ireland 
1 
Latvia 
1 
Romania 
United Kingdom 
1 
EU-level / multinational  2 
5 
Non-EU countries 
175 
Total 

Number 
respondents 
54 
15 
14 
12 
9 
9 
9 
8 
6 
5 
4 
4 
3 

42 

 
 
Most  of  the  participating  companies  are  SMEs,  accounting  for  more  than  80%  of 
responses.  Almost  half  of  all  respondents  are  micro-sized,  either  with  less  than  10 
employees  or  self-employed.  Additionally,  14  large  companies  (16%)  with  more  than 
250 employees submitted their answers to the PC.  

Regarding the market segments in which companies and consultancies are active in, the 
Business to Business (B2B) segment is dominant with 71 active companies (90%), with 
Business to Government (B2G) and Business to Customer (B2C) being mainly combined 
with B2B and only in very few cases conducted exclusively.    

A  majority  of  the  respondents  focuses  on  the  domestic  market  and  either  solely  sells 
domestically  or  only  occasionally  sells  to  other  Member  States.  For  33  respondents 
(41%),  more  than  10%  of  the  company’s  turnover  is  being  generated  through  sales  to 
other EU Member States. 

Key findings 

Overall assessment of the Directive 

With respect to the overall assessment of the Directive, a number of relevant questions, 
were asked and in particular: i) expectations for the EU VAT legislation; ii) impacts of 
the SID over the last five years; iii) changes in the difficulty of compliance; and iv) the 
SID complementing or conflicting other pieces of EU legislation.  

The  question  regarding  what  goals  the  stakeholders  expect  the  EU  VAT  invoicing 
legislation to achieve shows that all the Directive objectives and the need to ensure legal 
certainty  are  of  high  importance.  The  highest  importance  has  been  attributed  by 
respondents to the goal of establishing clear invoicing rules. The reduction of differences 
in invoicing rules between EU Member States and the reduction of burden on businesses 
is  of  very  high  importance  to  the  majority  of  respondents  as  well.  Of  slightly  lower 
importance are the support for faster and better tax control activities and the adoption of 
invoicing  rules  tailored  to  the  needs  of  SMEs,  for  which  58  (35%)  and  70  (42%) 
respondents respectively see very high importance.  

When asked regarding possible impacts of the SID over the last five years, stakeholders 
agree  that  changes  in  several  fields  have  occurred.  The  greatest  consensus  is  on  the 
increase  of  the  uptake  of  e-invoices  in  that  timeframe,  which  occurred  to  a  large  or 
moderate  extent  for  80%  of  the  respondents.  The  majority  also  agrees  that  compliance 
with  invoicing  requirements  has  become  simpler  and  that  invoicing  rules  have  become 
more uniform across the EU.  

Respondents generally do not consider that compliance with invoicing requirements has 
become  more  difficult  over  the  past  five  years.  Improvements  to  domestic  e-invoicing 
have been reported - more than two-thirds of respondents said it has become either easier 
or much easier. More than half of the stakeholders responding to the PC also reply that 
the  requirements  for  exchanging  e-invoices  across  borders  has  become  easier  or  much 
easier. For cross-border standard invoices, around one-fifth has found requirements to be 
more difficult, but the majority evaluates them to have remained as difficult or become 
easier.  As  for  the  requirements  for  using  specific  invoicing  regimes,  almost  half  the 
respondents see no difference over the last five years.  

43 

 
The  relationship  between  the  SID  and  other  pieces  of  EU  legislation  is  seen  by  the 
majority of stakeholders as not being conflictual.  

Rules on e-invoicing  

Respondents  reported  the  following  factors  relevant  for  the  uptake  of  e-invoicing: 
invoicing rules, business attitude towards e-invoicing, the security and interoperability of 
e-invoicing solutions, and their price. More than two-thirds classify the push from other 
companies  and  mandatory  e-invoicing  for  public  procurement  to  be  either  important  or 
very  important  in  order  to  increase  e-invoicing  uptake.  A  majority  of  the  responding 
stakeholders also assess the mandatory electronic submission of VAT reports or data to 
the tax authority as important or very important. 

Regarding the current  working of e-invoicing rules,  a majority responded that the legal 
definition  of  an  e-invoice  and  the  removal  of  legal  requirements  on  e-invoices  beyond 
those that exist for paper invoices are working well or very well.  

The  majority  of  responding  individuals  and  even  more  of  business  stakeholders  assess 
compliance with archiving requirements for paper invoices to be either easy or very easy. 
On the other hand, for e-invoices, more respondents find it difficult or even very difficult 
to comply with archiving requirements.  

Simplification of invoices issuance and content 

The  majority  of  business  stakeholders  assess  the  invoicing  regimes  of  simplified,  self-
billing, and summary invoices to be either important or very important for businesses.  

Respondents  were  asked  to  choose  from  several  factors  being  possible  drivers  for  the 
uptake  of  the  specific  invoicing  regimes,  and  namely:  invoicing  requirements,  business 
attitude,  push  from  other  companies  and  tax  advisor’s  suggestion.  The  most  important 
drivers were invoicing requirements for simplified invoices, and invoicing requirements 
and business attitude for both self-billing and summary invoices. 

When asked to evaluate the working of specific provisions applicable to domestic invoice 
issuance  and  content,  a  majority  of  the  professional  respondents  rate  all  of  them  to  be 
working  well  or  very  well.  Respondents  in  their  personal  capacity  were  considerably 
more critical. The elements to be included in standard invoices and content of simplified 
invoices  work  either  very  well  or  well  according  to  a  large  majority  of  business 
stakeholders  and  even  private  individuals.  The  reasons  why  part  of  respondents  thinks 
those rules might not work so well are mainly because they consider them as unclear or 
to provide insufficient certainty in case of audits.  

For the instances in which a simplified invoice can be issued, some respondents add in 
their comments that the threshold is too low. Regarding the requirements for issuing and 
receiving  self-billing  invoices,  around  one-fifth  of  respondents  say  rules  were  too 
complex  to  apply.  Private  individuals  answer  in  a  similar  manner  as  business 
stakeholders, but with a higher tendency of assessing rules to be too complex to apply.  

44 

 
Harmonisation of Cross-Border Invoice Issuance and Content  

The  cross-border  rules  submitted  for  consultation  encompassed:  (i)  the  applicable 
invoicing  rules;  (ii)  the  uniform  time  limit  for  issuing  invoices  for  cross-border 
transactions; (iii) the use of the ECB exchange rate for currency conversion; and (iv) the 
removal of requirements diverging across countries for self-billing.  

A two-thirds majority of business stakeholders evaluate all four rules to be working well 
or  very  well.  Even  though  private  individuals  are  slightly  more  critical,  there  is  still  a 
majority saying the rule works at least well for all of them.  

When  respondents  provide  a  negative  assessment,  the  underlying  reasons  are  rather 
diversified. One-fourth of the business stakeholders consider that the uniform time limit 
and the use of the ECB exchange rate do not work well because those rules are not being 
applied properly. The stakeholders assessing the rules on the applicable  invoicing rules 
and  on  the  removal  of  requirements  for  self-billing  as  not  working  well  say,  by  a 
majority, that these rules are unclear or that national rules remain too different.   

Cash accounting 

The  vast  majority  of  respondents  considered  the  cash  accounting  scheme  as  either 
important or very important for businesses. It is seen as very important by 68 respondents 
(54%) and as important by another 34 (27%).  

Regarding the factors for the uptake of cash accounting, administrative requirements and 
financial  gains  are  seen  as  important  or  very  important  by  108  (82%)  and  112  (86%) 
respondents respectively. A majority of stakeholders also think that business attitude and 
tax advisor’s suggestion are important factors for its uptake.  

45 

 
 
 
Annex 3: Methods and analytical models 

Application of the Standard Cost Model 

The  quantification  of  the  administrative  costs  and  cost  savings  rely  upon  the  Standard 
Cost Model (SCM), in accordance with the Better Regulation Toolbox.72 As prescribed 
therein, this section provides for the analysis instrumental in designing the questionnaire, 
starting  from  the  identification  and  classification  of  the  relevant  Information 
Obligations  (IOs),  and  then  the  analysis  of  the  frequency,  administrative  activities, 
population, and cost parameters.  

Identification and classification of IOs.  Based  on how the substantive  changes of the 
Directive have affected the information duties therein include, the analysis focused on the 
following IOs for paper invoices: 

 
 
 
 

IO1 – Issuance of a standard invoice for domestic transactions; 
IO2 – Issuance of a standard invoice for cross-border transactions; 
IO3 – Issuance of a self-billing invoice; 
IO4 – Issuance of a simplified invoice. 

As  for  the  Directive  provisions  aimed  at  impacting  on  the  e-invoicing  uptake,  the 
analysis focused on two IOs:  

 

 

IO5 –  Issuance of an e-invoice, including compliance with  I&A requirements at 
the time of issuance;  
IO6  –  Receipt  and  storage  of  an  e-invoice,  including  compliance  with  I&A 
requirements and cooperation with tax audits.  

Importantly, for IO1, IO5 and IO6, the analysis quantified the total administrative costs 
generated  by  this  provision,  hence  estimating  what  the  cost  for  a  company  to  issue  a 
standard paper invoice for domestic transactions is. For IO2, IO3, and IO4, the focus was 
set on quantifying the net impacts caused by the Directive that is the administrative costs 
and cost savings generated. 

The Better Regulation Tool distinguishes between 11 types of obligations, depending on 
the nature of the informational duty imposed on the economic operator. IOs from 1 to 5 
belong to the same category, that is the provision of ‘non-labelling information to third 
parties’, as  the invoice is  a document other than a label  through which taxable persons 
provide information to customers (or suppliers in case of self-billing), as well as to public 
authorities. IO6 belongs to the category ‘cooperation with audits & inspection by public 
authorities, including maintenance of appropriate records’. 

72   Better Regulation Toolbox (BRT), Tool #60. 

46 

 
 
                                                 
Identification  of  the  administrative  activities.  The  issuance  of  an  invoice  in  paper 
form  and  electronic  format  requires  a  number  of  actions  that  can  be  reconstructed  as 
follows:73 

1.  Preliminary activities. For the issuance of standard, paper invoices for domestic 
invoices,  no  preliminary  activities,  such  as 
transactions  and  simplified 
familiarisation and training are necessary, as this is a routine activity for taxable 
persons. For the issuance of a standard invoice for cross-border transactions, the 
taxable person may be not familiar with foreign invoicing rules, when applicable, 
and  would  thus  need  to  acquire  the  necessary  know-how.  This  task  should  be 
undertaken  ‘in  full’  when  a  taxable  person  enters  a  new  foreign  market;  to  the 
contrary,  in  markets  in  which  the  taxable  person  is  already  operating,  a  regular 
update could  be sufficient.  For the issuance of  self-billing invoices, both parties 
have  to  enter  into  a  prior  agreement  before  they  are  able  to  issue  the  invoice. 
Finally, in case of businesses switching from paper-based to electronic invoicing, 
preliminary  activities could  include familiarisation with  new rules, staff  training 
as  well  as  the  adjustments  required  to  integrate  e-invoicing  with  up-  and 
downstream  business  processes.  To  the  contrary,  administrative  costs  related  to 
obtaining the acceptance of e-invoicing from the buyer have not been taken into 
account because, in the vast majority of MS (23), an implicit, and thus costless, 
acceptance is considered sufficient. 

2.  Collection  of  the  data  necessary  to  fill  in  the  invoice.  The  data  include  both 
customers’  data  (suppliers’,  in  case  of  self-billing)  as  well  as  sales  and  VAT-
specific  data  (e.g.  nature  and  value  of  goods  and  services,  applicable  tax  rate, 
possible  exemptions).  As  for  the  retrieval  of  customers’  data,  the  activity  is 
different for old customers, the data of whom have already been shared with the 
taxable operator in  the past  and possibly stored,  and new customers, the data of 
whom  have  to  be  retrieved  ex  novo.  This  activity  is  common  for  all  types  of 
invoices, except for simplified invoices (unless required by national provisions).  
3.  Drafting the invoice. This activity consists in inputting the data collected into the 
invoice, either by hand, with the help of a non-dedicated software (such as a word 
processor or a spreadsheet) or created in a web portal, or automatically by means 
of an ERP software or invoicing software integrated with the ERP. 

4.  Delivering the invoice to the client. In the case of paper invoices, this can be done 
either de visu, together with the goods (if it is a provision of goods), or by post 
(including printing the invoice and preparing the envelope). In the case of an  e-
invoice, it can be delivered without any manual intervention (e.g. via EDI or an 
invoicing  software  integrated  with  the  ERP),  by  sending  an  email  with  PDF 
attachment or link to web portal, or by uploading it in a web portal. 

5.  Accepting the invoice. In case of self-billing invoice, the supplier needs to accept 
it.  The  acceptance  could  be  explicit,  per  each  invoice  or  per  group  of  invoice, 
tacit, or granted to all invoices issued between two parties in a certain period (e.g. 
via a clause in the prior agreement). This step is not relevant for other IOs. 

73   Cf. Capgemini et al. (2009), EU project on Baseline Measurement and Reduction of Administrative Costs, Final 
Report  for  the  European  Commission.  Hereinafter  ‘Capgemini  Report’.  Cf.  Administrative  Simplification 
Agency (various years), Rapport: Facturation électronique. Hereinafter ‘ASA Report’.  

47 

 
                                                 
The  flowchart  of  the  activities  necessary  to  comply  with  the  five  IOs  is  represented  in 
Figure 1.  The  various  activities  are  then  classified  according  to  the  Better  Regulation 
Toolkit in Table 1. 

Figure 1 – Flowchart of activities – Issuance of invoices (IOs 1 – 5) 

Table 1 – Classification of activities – Issuance of invoices (IOs 1 – 5) 

# 

Activity 

IOs 

Classification 

Changes introduced by the SID 

1.1 

Familiarising 
foreign 
requirements 

with 
invoicing 

IO2 

Familiarising  with 
the IO 

1.2 

1.3 

2.1a 

2.1b 

Entering  into  a  prior 
agreement 
Familiarising  with  e-
invoicing 
rules  and 
process 
Retrieving  customer’s 
(supplier’s)  data  (new 
customers) 
Retrieving  customer’s 
(supplier’s)  data  (old 
customers) 

IO3 

IO5 

IO1 
IO2 
IO3 
IO5 

2.2 

Retrieving  sales  and 
VAT data 

All 

3 

Drafting the invoice  

All 

4 

Delivering the invoice  All 

5 

Accepting the invoice 

IO3 

Filling  forms  and 
tables 

Familiarising  with 
the IO 

Adjusting  existing 
data  and  producing 
new data 
Retrieving  relevant 
information 
from 
existing data 
Adjusting  existing 
data  and  producing 
new data 
Filling  forms  and 
tables 

Copying 
submitting 
information 

and 
the 

Filing 
the 
information  –  EU 
and 
national 
requirement 

  For cross-border provision of services 
subject to reverse charge, Article 219a 
removed the need to retrieve information 
on foreign invoicing requirements 

  Uniform time limit and currency 

conversion method reduces the number of 
rules to be verified when issuing cross-
border invoices 

  Removal of national additional 

requirements 

  Provisions aimed to supporting the e-

invoicing uptake introduced  

  The same currency conversion method 

can be used throughout the EU (relevant 
for IO2) 

  Provisions aimed to supporting the e-
invoicing uptake introduced (thus, 
differences in the time taken and out-of-
pocket costs incurred for drafting and 
sending an invoice in paper form versus in 
electronic format will be measured)  

  Removal of national additional 

requirements 

The  Directive  does  not  affect  the  provisions  governing  invoice  receipt  and  archiving. 
However,  by  fostering  the  adoption  of  e-invoicing  solutions  and  archiving,  which  can 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
allow  digital  data  capture,  automated  invoice  validation  and  matching  with  related 
documents, it is also expected to affect the ACs to comply with this IO. Additionally, e-
invoice and e-archiving solutions may reduce the administrative costs to comply with tax 
audits, in particular to gather and prepare the information needed, and for submitting it to 
the tax authority.  

Table 2 – Classification of activities –Invoices receipt and archiving (IO6) 
# 
1 
Receiving the invoice   
2  Validating the invoice 
3 

Filling forms and tables 
Retrieving relevant information from existing data 
Filling forms and tables 

Classification 

Activity 

Entering the invoice data 
Gathering 
documentation for audits 

4.1 

information  and  preparing 

Retrieving relevant information from existing data 

4.2  Submitting documents to the tax authority  Filing the information 

Identification  of  the  population  and  of  the  relevant  segments.  The  available  studies 
on  the  costs  of  invoicing  express  the  final  estimates  in  terms  of  the  cost  per  invoice, 
rather  than  as  the  annual  cost  per  company.  The  Consultant  kept  the  same  approach, 
hence the population is defined as the number of invoices issued by EU taxable persons. 
The  Consultant  asked  economic  operators  about  the  number  of  invoices  issued  and 
received,  detailing  the  form/format  (paper  or  electronic)  and,  where  relevant,  their 
geographical  scope  (dome  1stic  vs.  cross-border),  as  well  as  the  specific  invoicing 
regimes (self-billing and simplified ones).    

Though the population is defined as the total number of invoices, the number and type of 
taxable  persons  remains  relevant  to  the  analysis,  because  the  different  sizes  and 
behaviours  of  the  taxable  persons  concerned  are  relevant  for  the  segmentation  of  the 
population, which was done over two dimensions, as described in Table 3 below.  

Table 3 – Segmentation of the population per IO 
Dimension 

Segments 

IOs 

Business 
size 

IO1, 
IO2, 
IO5, 
IO6 

  Independent workers 
and micro-enterprises 
(less than 10 
employees)  

  Small and medium 
enterprises (10-249 
employees) 

  Large enterprises 

(250 employees or 
more) 

Notes 
  Part  of  independent  workers  and  micro-enterprises 
may benefit from the SME exemption, which in 8 MS 
also  release  them  from  the  obligation  for  issuing  an 
invoice,  and  should  then  not  be  considered  as  part  of 
the population.74 

  As evidenced by the business survey, both the volume 
of  invoices  exchanged  and  the  rate  of  use  of  e-
invoicing largely vary across business size classes. 
  For specific invoicing regimes (IO3 and IO4),  ex ante 
segmentation  is  not  advisable  because  of  the  lower 
diffusion and thus the lower number of data points.   

74   Namely,  Belgium,  France,  Greece,  Croatia,  Hungary,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  and  Portugal.  Cf.  Deloitte  (2017), 
Special scheme for small enterprises under the VAT Directive 2006/112/EC  - Options for review, Final report, 
Vol. 2, at p. 6. 

49 

 
 
                                                 
In-house vs. 
Outsourcing 

IO2, 
IO5, 
IO6 

  Companies carrying 

  For 

IO2,  companies  may  outsource 

task  1.1 

out the tasks 
internally  
  Companies 

delegating the task to 
a service provider 
(e.g. tax advisor, e-
invoicing service 
provider) 

“Familiarising with foreign invoicing requirements”. 
  For  IO5  and  IO6,  as  emerged  from  the  business 
survey, a significant share of businesses exchange (and 
archive) e-invoices through online service providers. 
  Available studies suggest that the issuance of invoices 
is  carried  out  mostly  or  fully  in-house,  thus  this 
segmentation  is  unlikely  to  be  relevant  for  the  other 
tasks, and thus for IO1, IO3, and IO4.75   

Identification of the frequency. Invoice issuance, regardless of the type of invoice, is a 
sporadic IO, meaning that it is done routinely, but not at regular intervals. However, as 
the population is defined as the number of invoices, this parameter is not relevant to the 
analysis. 

Identification of the cost parameters. The parameters relevant for the quantification are 
described in Table 4 below, presenting both the general approach and the data sources, as 
well as the specificity for each IO. 

Table 4 – Cost Parameters  
Type of cost 

IOs 

Parameters 
  Average time spent to carry 

Labour costs 

All 

Out-of-
pocket-
expenses 

Outsourced 
costs 

Investment 
costs 

All 

IO2, 
IO5, 
IO6 

IO5, 
IO6 

out the tasks (targeted 
consultation) 

  Average salary for a clerk 

(Eurostat) 

  Cost of printing the invoice 

(secondary sources) 

  Cost of sending the invoice 
(domestic or cross-border, 
secondary sources) 

  Fees paid to the external 
service provider (targeted 
consultation) 

  Costs of dedicated IT 
equipment or software 

The Business As Usual Factor  

Notes 

  When time estimates are not salient to the 
interviewee, average time spent will be 
estimated based on personnel dedicated to 
invoicing  

  For IO3, costs of printing/sending the prior 

agreement as well   

  For IO5 and IO6, these costs may be null, 
depending on the e-invoicing solution 
adopted (e.g. invoicing software integrated 
with the ERP) 

  For IO5 and IO6, businesses may purchase 
software or IT equipment specifically to 
exchange e-invoices as well as install an 
electronic archiving system 

All  administrative  costs  and  cost  savings  analysed  are  considered  administrative 
burdens. The cost savings concern additional or unnecessary activities, i.e. not those that 
would remain even in  the absence of a regulatory  obligation. For instance, the costs of 
issuing  a  paper  invoice  rather  than  e-invoice  are  additional  to  those  imposed  by  the 
minimum compliance with the invoicing obligations. As for the few administrative costs 
analysed below, they invariably concern obligations that go beyond a company’s normal 
activity, and, thus, the Business-as-Usual (BAU) factor is considered as 0%76. 

75   Cf. Capgemini Report; HMRC Report. 
76   The  BAU  factor  represents  the  share  of  costs  that  the  company  would  bear  even  if  the  IO  were  removed;  its 

complement represents the share of administrative burdens over the total administrative costs. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex 4: Invoicing issuance and content – implementation by 
Member States 

Transposition by Member States 

Table 1 – Transposition of the provisions on the invoicing issuance and content 

Indicator  

Incorrect 
transposition  

Provision 

Standard invoice 

Content of standard invoices 

Financial Services 
Specific invoicing regimes 

Simplified invoices 

Self-billing 

Summary invoice 

Amended clauses on cash accounting, self-billing, reverse charge, 
margin schemes 
Invoice not required for intra-EU financial services 

Simplified invoice allowed for minor (< EUR100) transactions 

77

Simplified invoice allowed for amending documents and messages
Details on a simplified invoice beyond those in Articles 226, 227, 230 
Simplified invoice not allowed for transactions above EUR 400 
No additional requirements on prior agreement 
No additional conditions on summary invoice issuance 
Minimum period one month 
No additional requirements on acceptance procedure 

Cross-border provisions 
Applicable Jurisdiction 
Time limit 

Content of cross-border invoices 

Currency conversion 
Translation 

Invoicing rules are in line with the new Article 219a 
Time limit for intra-EU transactions on 15th day of the following month 
Allowed to omit the VAT rate and the VAT amount for reverse charge 
transactions 
Allowed to use ECB exchange rate 
No requirement for all invoices to be translated into national language 

Source: Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC 

Changes on national level 

Standard invoices 

0 

0 

2  

- 

0 
0 
2  
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

All  Member States adapted their legislation to  the new clauses. The requirement not  to 
require invoices for intra-EU financial services was implemented by all Member States. 
Some went further (Croatia, Italy, Slovenia and Spain) and have removed the obligation 
to issue an invoice for VAT-exempt transactions for all financial service providers. Four 
Member  States  (Finland,  France,  Lithuania,  and  Poland)  still  require  invoices  from 
financial  services  providers  under  specific  conditions  –  such  as  for  certain  business-to-
business  (B2B)  transactions  or  upon  customer’s  request.  The  situation  is  depicted  on 
figure 1.  

77  

A large number of Member States do not have a specific provision transposing Article 220a(1)(b). However, 
after  further  research  and  the  interaction  with  tax  authorities,  it  was  clarified  that,  in  most  of  the  countries, 
amending documents and messages do not need to include all the information required for VAT invoices. For 
this reason, a lack of an explicit national provision transposing Article 220a(1)(b) does not imply its incorrect 
transposition.  

51 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 1 – Legal changes on invoicing obligations for financial services providers for intra-EU transactions 

Legend: 

MS that do not require invoices from financial services 
providers for intra-EU transactions 
MS that require invoices from financial services providers 
under specific circumstances 
MS that removed the invoicing requirement for financial 
services providers after the SID 
Non-EU countries 

Source: Study on the Evaluation of invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC, January 2019. 

Specific invoicing regimes 

The  possibility  to  issue  a  self-billing  invoice  was  granted  almost  in  all  EU  countries 
already prior to the SID SID78. Twenty Member States require an explicit prior agreement 
between the parties. Little has changed in this respect, since only Luxembourg and Malta 
removed the duty for the prior agreement to be explicit. The acceptance procedure had to 
be explicit only in four countries, while it currently does not have to be in any Member 
State. Further requirements79 were in place in seven countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, 
Hungary, Malta, Poland, and Romania), and were removed in all of them except for two. 
The situation is illustrated in more detail in figure 2 below.  

Figure 2 – Legal changes on self-billing 

Legend: 

MS that introduced the possibility to issue 
self-billing invoices 
MS that removed the additional requirements 
for the self-billing prior agreement 
MS that removed the requirement of explicit 
acceptance of self-billed invoices 
Non-EU countries 

Source: Study on the Evaluation of invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC, January 2019. 

As summarised in figure 3 below, four Member States introduced the possibility to issue 
simplified invoices following the transposition of the SID (Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy, and 
Malta)  since  twenty  four  already  allowed  it  before.  Sixteen  Member  States,  where 

78  
79  

The only exceptions were Latvia and Croatia (the latter not bound by the EU acquis in 2010). 
E.g. the duty to notify the tax authority of the prior agreement, or to ask for an authorisation, or to conclude the 
agreement before a notary.  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
simplified  invoices  were  already  allowed,  go  beyond  the  minimum  requirements,  and 
allow simplified invoices to be used also in other circumstances80.  

Figure 3 – Legal changes on simplified invoices 

Legend: 

MS that already envisaged the possibility of issuing 
simplified invoices and did not enlarge the scope 
MS that enlarged the scope of simplified invoices 

MS that introduced the possibility of issuing simplified 
invoices 
Non-EU countries 

Source: Study on the Evaluation of invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC, January 2019. 

The possibility of issuing a summary invoice was already granted in 24 Member States. 
Following  the  Directive,  summary  invoices  were  introduced  also  in  the  remaining  four 
Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Croatia,  and  Malta).  In  line  with  the  revised 
Article 223,  all  EU  countries  allow  summary  invoices  to  cover  at  least  one  month  of 
supplies; in 17 Member States, one month represents the maximum period allowed. The 
situation is depicted in figure 4. 

Figure 4 – Legal changes on summary invoices 

Legend: 

MS already allowing the use of summary invoices, 
which did not extend the time coverage and did not 
remove conditions 
MS that introduced the possibility of issuing 
summary invoices 
MS that increased the maximum time duration 
covered by a summary invoice 
MS that removed additional conditions limiting the 
use of summary invoices 
Non-EU countries 

Source: Study on the Evaluation of invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC, January 2019. 

Cross-border provisions 

Prior  to  the  implementation  of  the  SID,  in  16  countries  national  invoicing  rules  would 
apply to taxable persons established (or in some cases registered) therein and thus were 
changed by the Directive.  

80  

(i)  for  transactions  the  value  of  which  is  between  EUR 100  and  400,  in  10  Member  States;  (ii)  for  specific 
business sectors, in 10 Member States; and (iii) in other cases, e.g. when the business practices make it difficult 
to issue a standard invoice, in five Member States.  

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
A time limit for intra-EU transactions was introduced in Croatia and Slovenia, while 
nineteen  Member  States  had  to  modify  their  previous  limit  (as  illustrated  in  figure 5 
below).  

Prior to the Directive, 16 Member States allowed omitting the VAT rate and the VAT 
amount  on  invoices  in  certain  cross-border  transactions,  while  currently  all  Member 
States allow for such omission.  

Following the transposition of the Directive, the use of the exchange rate published by 
the ECB is now possible in all EU countries, compared to the 10 Member States in which 
this was possible prior to the SID.  

A general requirement to translate any VAT invoice, both issued and received, was not 
in  force  in  any  EU  country  even  prior  to  the  SID.  Tax  authorities  would  request  a 
translation whenever necessary  for  audit purposes. However, based on  accounting laws 
rather  than  VAT  legislation,  a  general  requirement  to  issue  invoices  in  the  local 
languages  existed  in  five  Member  States81.  It  was  removed  in  Poland  and  Portugal,  by 
means  of  administrative  rules  and  tax  rulings  which  were  not  connected  to  the 
implementation of the Directive.  

Figure 5 – Legal changes on the time limit for intra-EU transactions 

Legend: 

MS that already complied with the time limit 
envisaged in the SID for intra-EU transactions 
MS that modified the time limit for intra-EU 
transactions 
MS that introduced the time limit for intra-EU 
transactions 
Non-EU countries 

Source: Study on the Evaluation of invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC, January 2019.  

81  

Bulgaria, France, Lithuania, Poland, and Portugal.  

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex 5: Cash accounting scheme – implementation by 
Member States 

The cash accounting regime targeting micro enterprises is widespread in the EU, as it is 
foreseen  in  22  Member  States82,  In  20  out  of  22  Member  States,  the  cash  accounting 
regime  is  combined  with  the  postponement  of  the  VAT  deduction,  as  allowed  by 
Article 167a. 

Eight Member States have introduced the cash accounting over the last five years, in all 
these  Member  States,  the  introduction  of  the  cash  accounting  was  paralleled  with  the 
implementation of Article 167a, i.e. with the postponement of deduction. In addition, the 
postponement  of  VAT  deduction  was  also  introduced  in  three  Member  States  that 
previously had the cash accounting regime in place.  

The scope of cash accounting was also enlarged as a result of other changes to the 
national  legal  frameworks.  Three  Member  States  (Ireland,  Italy  and  Luxembourg) 
increased the ceiling under which micro enterprises can opt for cash accounting; in one 
(Portugal), the scheme went from specific (applicable only to certain taxable persons), to 
open to any taxable person below the turnover threshold. In Malta, the introduction of the 
ceiling caused a reduction of the number of eligible taxable persons.  

Figure 1 – Legal changes on cash accounting 

Legend: 

MS that already provided cash accounting for 
micro enterprises 
MS that introduced cash accounting for micro 
enterprises 
MS not providing cash accounting targeted to 
micro enterprises 
MS that introduced the postponement of VAT 
deductibility for taxable persons opting for cash 
accounting 

MS that enlarged the scope of cash accounting* 

Non-EU countries 

*: Including the increase of the threshold, the removal 
of  business  sectors  limitations,  and  the  removal  of 
other additional requirements. 

Source: Study on the evaluation of Invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC, January 2019.  

82  

Belgium, France,  Lithuania, and the Netherlands do have a cash-accounting scheme, but it is not targeted to 
enterprises below a certain size, and thus bear no relation with Article 167a.  

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex 6: Archiving – situation in the Member States 

Figure 1 – Storage periods of invoices 

Legend: 

4 years 
5 years 
6 years 
7 years 
10 years 
Non-EU countries 

Source: Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC, January 2019.  

Figure 2 – Place of storage of invoices 

Legend: 

  MS allowing to store only e-invoices abroad 
MS allowing to store paper and e-invoices 
abroad 

Prior notification required 

Full online access not required 

Storage in third countries only with mutual 
tax assistance agreement 
Non-EU countries 

Source: Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC, January 2019.  

Figure 3 – Invoice storage form 

Legend: 

MS requiring invoices be stored in original form 
MS allowing to convert invoices(*) 
MS imposing specific conditions for the scanning and 
disposal of paper invoices 
Non-EU countries 

Note:*  Certain  Member  States  only  allow  the  conversion  from 
one form to another (e.g. only from paper to electronic form, and 
not vice versa). 
Source: Authors’ own elaboration. 

Source: Study on the evaluation of invoicing rules of Directive 2006/112/EC, January 2019.  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7: Evaluation matrix 

1) Relevance 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Sources of evidence 

EQ#1.  To  what  extent  do  the  objectives  of  the  SID  still  correspond  to  the  needs  of  the  stakeholders,  notably  the 
economic operators and the Member States' administrations? 

 

 

 

 

Importance 
of 
harmonising 
invoicing 
economic 
to 
rules 
operators  and  Member 
States’ administrations 

rules 

Importance of simplifying 
invoicing 
to 
economic  operators  and 
States’ 
Member 
administrations  

Importance of e-invoicing 
rules 
e-invoicing 
uptake  

for 

Importance of  tax control 
by  means  of    invoicing 
rules  

Share of cross-border VAT transactions 

 
  Volume of cross-border e-invoices 
  Businesses’ appreciation of the importance of the 
to 

convergence  of  national 
operate cross-border 
Tax authorities’ appreciation of the importance of 
harmonizing invoicing rules 

invoicing  rules 

Evidence  on  businesses  adopting 
regimes simplified by the Directive  

invoicing 

  Businesses’  appreciation  of  the  importance  of 

invoicing simplification  

  Businesses’  appreciation  of  the  appropriateness 

  Desk Review  
  Business Survey 
 

Targeted  consultation  of 
economic operators and tax 
authorities 

  OPC 

  Desk Review  
 
 

Legal Mapping 
Targeted  consultation  of 
economic operators and tax 
authorities 

of specific invoicing regimes  
Tax authorities’ appreciation of the importance of 
invoicing simplification 

  OPC 

Share of businesses making no / limited use of e-
invoicing due to legal barriers 

  Businesses’  perception  of  the  severity  of  e-
invoicing  legal  requirements  as  a  barrier  to  e-
invoicing adoption  

  Businesses’  appreciation  of  the  appropriateness 

of e-invoicing rules 

  Number/frequency of controls related to VAT  
  Detected  value  of  VAT  fraud,  in  particular  of 
irregularities 
invoices, 
underreporting  sales,  missing  trader  and  cash 
accounting scheme 
Tax authorities’ appreciation of the importance of 
invoicing rules for tax control 

related 

fake 

to 

 

  Business Survey  
 

Targeted  consultation  of 
economic operator  

  OPC 

  Desk  Review  (OECD:  tax 

 

administration statistics)  
Targeted  consultation  of 
tax authorities  

Importance  of  supporting 
SME  by  means  of  cash 
accounting 

 

Share of SMEs subject to payment delays longer 
that the VAT payment period 

  Businesses’ appreciation of the importance of the 

cash accounting regime 

  Businesses’  appreciation  of  the  appropriateness 

 

of cash accounting regime 
Tax  authorities’  perception  on  the  viability  of 
cash accounting regime for the public budget 

  Desk  Review 

(Eurostat 
and 
and 

data 

international 

data, 
national 
publications)  
Targeted  consultation  of 
economic  operator  and  tax 
authorities  

 

  OPC 

EQ#2.  To what extent the main issues, addressed by the Invoicing Directive still persist, have improved, worsened, or 
otherwise changed? 

of 

Degree 
complexity 
fragmentation 
invoicing 

regulatory 
and 
e-

on 

  Number  of  Member  States  imposing  national 

specific requirements on e-invoicing  

  Magnitude  of  cross-country  differences  in  the 
e-invoicing 

implementation/interpretation 
rules/requirements (e.g. BCAT, archiving) 
Legal disputes or requests for clarification on the 
interpretation  of  e-invoicing  rules  received  by 
TAs  

of 

 

  Desk  Review  (Court  of 
the  European 

Justice  of 
Union jurisprudence) 
Legal mapping 

 
  Business Survey  
 

Targeted  consultation  of 
tax 
and 
authorities 
economic operators  

  Businesses’ appreciation of the burdensomeness / 

clarity of e-invoicing provisions  
e-invoicing  SPs’  perception  of  difficulties  to 

 

  OPC 

57 

 
 
Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Sources of evidence 

of 

Degree 
complexity 
fragmentation 
invoicing 
content  

regulatory 
and 
on 
issuance  and 

operate cross-border  

  Number  of  Member  States  imposing  additional 

national requirements on invoicing  

  Magnitude  of  cross-country  differences 

in  

implementation/interpretation of invoicing rules 

 

  Number of instances in which the complexity of 
invoicing rules creates legal disputes at EU level  
Legal disputes or requests for clarification on the 
interpretation of invoicing rules received by TAs 
  Businesses’    perception  of  the  difficulties  to 

exchange cross-border invoices  

  Businesses’ appreciation of the burdensomeness / 
clarity  of  invoicing  rules  and  specific  invoicing 
regimes  

EQ#3. Are there any new stakeholders' needs, also in light of technological developments in the field of e-invoicing, 
which should be addressed through EU-level invoicing rules? 

Changes  of 
environment 
invoicing rules   

regulatory 
affecting 

  Number of Member States introducing additional 
reporting requirements / real-time controls  
Tax authorities’ opinion on the fitness of current 
invoicing rules to new requirements and controls 

 

  Desk Review 
 

Targeted  consultation  of 
tax authorities 

Changes 
economic 
affecting 
rules   

of  market/-
environment 
e-invoicing 

Changes  of 
technology 
environment  affecting  e-
invoicing rules   

 

 

 

 

for 

services, 

including 

Evolution  of  the  scope  of  e-invoicing  solutions 
and 
cross-border 
transactions 
Evolution of the cost of e-invoicing solutions and 
services, including for cross-border transactions 
e-invoicing SPs’ opinion on the fitness of current 
e-invoicing rules 

Emergence  of  new  technologies  to  guarantee  e-
invoice I&A  

  Businesses’  opinion  on  new  technologies  to 
guarantee  e-invoice  I&A  not  mentioned  in  the 
Directive 
e-invoicing SPs’ opinion on new technologies to 
guarantee  e-invoice  I&A  not  mentioned  in  the 
Directive 

 

  Desk Review 
 

Targeted  consultation  of 
economic operators  

  Desk Review 
 

Targeted  consultation  of 
economic operators  

2. Effectiveness 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Sources of evidence 

EQ#4.  To what extent has the Directive contributed to the achievement of its objectives, in terms of: 

Reduction  of  Administra-
tive Burden for businesses 

Increase  of  the  uptake  of 
e-invoicing 

Supporting  effective  tax 
control  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total  reduction  of  administrative  burdens  for 
businesses  generated  by  the  Directive  AB 
reduction from e-invoicing   

 

See Efficiency section 

the  share  of 

Trends  in  the  share  of  companies  issuing/ 
receiving e-invoices  
Trends 
in 
received electronically  
Share  of  businesses  adopting  different  e-
invoicing solutions  
Stakeholders’  appreciation  of  the  role  played 
by the Directive to e-invoicing uptake  

invoices 

issued/ 

in  number/frequency/duration  of 

Trends 
controls related to VAT 
Tax authorities’ appreciation of the role played 
by  the  Directive  to  increase  the  effectiveness 
of tax control  

58 

  Desk  Review  (Eurostat  data, 
and  national 

international 
data and publications)  

  Business Survey  
 

Targeted 
economic operator  

consultation 

of 

  OPC 

  Desk  Review  (OECD, 
administration statistics) 
Targeted  consultation  of  tax 
authorities 

tax 

 

 
Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Sources of evidence 

Contribution  to  improved 
functioning of the internal 
market  

 

 

Trends  in  the  share  of  companies  issuing/ 
receiving e-invoices for intra-EU transactions 
Trends 
received 
transactions 

the  share  of 
electronically 

issued/ 
intra-EU 

invoices 

for 

in 

Contribution 
promotion  

to  SME 

Contribution  to  reduction 
of VAT fraud  

  Reduction  of  the  administrative  burdens  for 

exchanging cross-border invoices 

  Reduction  of  e-invoicing  switching  costs  due 

higher SPs competition  
  Businesses’  perception  of 

the  ease  of 
exchanging    cross-border  invoices  and  e-
invoices 

 

 

Trends in the share of SMEs issuing/receiving 
e-invoices  
Trends in the share of invoices issued/received 
electronically by SMEs 

  Reduction  of  the  administrative  burdens  for 

 

 

 

 

SMEs 
Financial costs savings for SMEs 

Trends  in  VAT  Gap  as  %  of  the  VAT  Total 
Tax Liability (VTTL)  
Estimated revenue loss from MTIC fraud as % 
of the VTTL and in terms of revenue loss 
Tax  authorities’  appreciation  of 
the  role 
played by the Directive to reduce VAT fraud   

  Desk Review 
 
Legal mapping   
  Business Survey  
 

consultation 

Targeted 
of 
economic  operator  and  tax 
authorities  

  OPC 

  Desk Review 
 
Legal mapping   
  Business Survey  
 

consultation 

Targeted 
of 
economic  operator  and  tax 
authorities  

  OPC 

international 
data 

(VAT  Gap 
and 
and 

  Desk  Review 
Studies, 
national 
publications, Intrastat data) 
Internal elaborations based on 
Intrastat data 
Targeted  consultation  of  tax 
authorities 

 

 

EQ#5. What were the factors that hindered the achievement of the objectives in terms of: 

 
 

Legal mapping 
Targeted 
of 
economic  operators  and  tax 
authorities 

consultation 

  OPC 

Legal mapping 

  Desk Review 
 
  Business Survey 
 

consultation 

Targeted 
of 
economic  operators  and  tax 
authorities  

  OPC 

  Desk Review 
 

Targeted  consultation  of  tax 
authorities 

Reduction  of  administra-
tive  burdens 
for  busi-
nesses 

Increase  of  the  uptake  of 
e-invoicing 

Supporting  effective  tax 
controls 

  Businesses’ 

attitude 

towards 

regulatory 

simplifications 
Evidence  and  severity  of  problems  with 
invoicing requirements in adjacent areas  

Evidence  and  severity  of  legal  barriers  to  e-
invoicing  
Evidence  and  severity  of  other  barriers  to  e-
invoicing 

Extent  of  legal  barriers  and  limited  resources 
to  timely  control  companies’  transactions  and 
implementing risk analysis systems 
Problems  with 
information 
between  Member  States  on  VAT  payers  and 
transactions  
IT readiness of tax authorities 

exchanging 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59 

 
 
 
3. Efficiency 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Sources of evidence 

EQ#6. To what extent the invoicing rules introduced by the Directive were efficient i.e. whether the benefits of the reduced costs  of 
issuing invoices, legal certainty and uniform rules have outweighed the costs imposed upon businesses by the new rules? 

for 

Regulatory  costs  and  cost 
businesses 
savings 
the 
generated 
implementation 
the 
Directive  

by 

of 

Regulatory  costs  and  cost 
savings  for  tax  authorities 
the 
generated 
implementation 
the 
Directive 

by 

of 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to 

Administrative  costs  and  cost  savings  due 
issuance of domestic standard invoices 
Administrative  costs  and  cost  savings  due  to  the 
issuance of cross-border standard invoices 
Administrative costs and cost savings due to specific 
invoicing regimes 
Administrative  costs  and  cost  savings  due 
issuance and storage of e-invoices   
Financial  costs  and  cost  savings  due  to  the  cash 
accounting scheme 

to 

to  new 

the 
rules, 

One-off  enforcement  costs  generated  by 
(including  adaptation 
Directive 
training, purchase of IT equipment) 
Recurrent  enforcement  costs  generated  by 
Directive  
Enforcement cost savings due to lower unitary costs 
of tax audits on taxpayers using e-invoicing  
Enforcement  cost  savings  due  to  lower  costs  for 
identifying when a tax investigation is necessary 

the 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 

Desk Review (EU and national and 
publications) 
Legal mapping 
Business Survey 
Targeted consultation of economic 
operators and tax authorities 

Desk Review (EU and national and 
publications)  
Legal mapping 
Targeted 
authorities 

consultation  of 

tax 

4. Coherence 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Sources of evidence 

EQ#7.  To what extent are the rules provided for in the Invoicing Directive coherent with other EU interventions and policy priorities? 

Desk Research (Court of Justice 
of 
the  European  Union 
jurisprudence) 
Targeted 
economic  operators  and 
authorities 

consultation 

of 
tax 

Degree  of  compatibility  with 
other EU legislation  

Degree  of  alignment  with  EU 
strategies 

Coordination/synergies 
with 
other  EU  initiatives  in  the  e-
invoicing field  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Existence  of 
inconsistencies,  overlaps,  and 
synergies  between  invoicing  rules  and  other 
legislation 
Existence  of    inconsistencies,  overlaps,  and 
synergies  between  e-invoicing  rules  and  other 
legislation  
Stakeholders’  perception  on  the  severity  of  the 
inconsistencies, 
synergies 
overlaps, 
identified 

and 

in 

Consistency  of  the  Directive  objectives  with 
those  set 
relevant  EU  strategies  and 
legislation 
Stakeholders’  perception  on  the  fit  between  EU 
strategies and invoicing rules:  
coherence of the Directive objectives with other 
EU strategies 

Consistency  of  the  e-invoicing  provisions  and 
principles  with  EU  non-legal  interventions  to 
support e-invoicing  
Stakeholders’  perception  on  the  fit  between 
other EU initiatives and the Directive 

5. EU Added Value 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Sources of evidence 

EQ#8. To what extent has the EU intervention been creating added value with respect to Member States acting at national level or 
through multilateral arrangement? 

Added  value  of  setting 
common invoicing rules on 
issuance and content at EU 
level   

 

 

invoices 

standard 

indicators  concerning 

issuance  of 
Effectiveness 
domestic 
of 
administrative burdens, businesses’ perception of the 
ease of exchanging cross-border invoices) 
Effectiveness  indicators  on  appreciation  of  the  role 
played by the Directive to increase the effectiveness 

(reduction 

 

 
 

Targeted  consultation  of  economic 
operators and tax authorities 
OPC 
Findings  from  other  Evaluation 
Questions 

60 

 
 
Sources of evidence 
 

Consultants’ expert assessment 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

value 

Added 
of  
establishing  common  e-
invoicing  requirements  at 
EU level  

Added  value  in  matching 
cash  accounting  and  the 
of  VAT 
postponement 
deductibility  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of tax control 
Stakeholders’  opinion  on  the  benefit  of  common 
invoicing rules at EU level  
Likelihood  of  Member  States 
adopting harmonised and simpler invoicing rules  

spontaneously 

Effectiveness  indicators  concerning  uptake  of  e-
invoicing (reduction of administrative burdens, share 
of  companies  issuing/receiving  e-invoices  for  intra-
EU  transactions,  business  perception  of  the  ease  of 
exchanging cross-border e-invoices) 
Stakeholders’  opinion  on  the  benefit  to  establish 
common e-invoicing requirements at EU level 
Likelihood  of  Member  States 
adopting liberal e-invoicing policies 

spontaneously 

Effectiveness  indicators  concerning  uptake  of  cash 
accounting (financial cost savings for companies) 
Tax authorities’ opinion on the benefit of having an 
explicit provision  for  the  postponement  of  VAT  for 
cash accounting taxable persons 
Likelihood of Member States demanding the special 
the  postponement  of  VAT 
derogation 
deductibility 

for 

61