.webp)
Read
By clicking on”Accept all cookies“, you agree that cookies may be stored on your device in order to improve site navigation, analyze site usage, and help us with our marketing efforts. See our privacy policy for more information.
.webp)
The General Directorate of Public Finance published a practical guide in July 2026 for launching the electronic invoicing reform, highlighted by the Ministry of Economy just days before the deadline. This 34-page document, organized into 29 Q&As, has a dual purpose: to confirm that the legal timeline is neither postponed nor suspended, and to organize the management of startup incidents without paralyzing economic activity.
Its practical scope is significant and goes beyond the mere question of penalties. The guide resolves issues that the reform had left unclear: the deductibility of VAT on invoices received outside the electronic system, the non-systematic nature of regularization, the distinction between technical rejection and commercial refusal, and the handling of failures attributable to a service provider or a state tool. We have analyzed the full text and provide the key takeaways below.
The guide serves as an operational document outlining the "course of action" during the initial phase of electronic invoicing. It has four explicit objectives: to ensure business continuity, guarantee normal invoice processing, protect the rights of all parties, and organize the regularization of situations that did not immediately follow the electronic workflow mandated by the reform.
Its structure follows the operational rollout of the transition: receiving invoices and payment continuity (questions 1 to 6), issuing mandatory invoices (questions 7 to 16), voluntary early adoption (questions 17 to 20), e-reporting data transmission (questions 21 to 24), startup incidents (questions 25 and 26), and finally, the compliance roadmap and dialogue with the tax authorities (questions 27 to 29). Each answer is accompanied, where applicable, by references to the relevant legal texts.
Important note. The legal status of this document should be clarified from the outset. It is a practical guide published by the DGFiP, not an administrative commentary integrated into the BOFiP. Its enforceability under Article L. 80 A of the Tax Procedures Code appears uncertain at this stage: it is not published in the database of enforceable commentaries and is not formally presented as an interpretation of tax law.
Companies should therefore treat it as a reliable framework for understanding the administration's expected behavior (and as such, it is extremely useful) rather than as a legal guarantee that can be invoked in court. This caveat does not diminish its practical value; it simply defines its scope.
Taxpayers may still attempt to act on the basis of legitimate expectations during discussions with the authorities.
The guide opens with three principles that the administration presents as inseparable, and whose interplay governs the entire interpretation of the document.
As of September 1, 2026, companies subject to the reform must be able to receive electronic invoices, and those subject to the issuance requirement must issue their invoices through an accredited platform. This is based on Article 289 bis of the French General Tax Code (CGI), which stipulates that the issuance, transmission, and receipt of electronic invoices must be carried out using an accredited platform.
This reaffirmation, repeated in every section of the guide, must be taken seriously: it closes the door to interpretations that might view the announced tolerance as a disguised postponement.
The second principle, and arguably the most operational one, is that while the reform changes the methods for transmitting invoices between companies, it does not alter the substantive rules regarding the existence of the transaction, commercial debt, payment, invoice accounting, or the right to deduct VAT.
Consequently, an invoice received or transmitted via another customary channel (email, PDF, paper) should not be rejected for that reason alone, provided it corresponds to a real transaction and contains the information necessary for its processing.
The third principle, which tempers the second, is that continuity should not be confused with an exemption from applying the reform. For transactions falling within the scope of the electronic issuance requirement, using a customary channel is not compliant with the target model. The guide therefore encourages companies to continue transmitting the same invoice electronically or to arrange for its regularization as soon as possible, particularly to enable the transmission of the required data to the administration (as data from invoices issued under Article 289 bis is transmitted to the administration by the accredited platform chosen by the taxable person (CGI, art. 289 E)).
The central premise of the document stems from the interplay of these three principles: during the startup phase, sanctions will not be applied to companies that encounter difficulties in implementing the reform but are committed to a serious compliance roadmap. The administration will distinguish these situations from those involving inertia, avoidance, or a persistent refusal to adopt the system.
Companies that have not yet designated a receiving platform must initiate the process immediately, either directly through an accredited platform or via their usual solution: management software, accounting software, an accountant, a bank, or another service provider. The guide is explicit: this situation should not lead to interrupting operations, refusing to process received invoices, or blocking payments. However, it must be corrected quickly, and the company must be able to demonstrate that it has taken the necessary steps.
When an electronic invoice is received but the software or internal organization is not yet ready to process it, the company must identify the issue (inability to integrate automatically, configuration errors, unfinished internal processes), contact its service provider, and may implement temporary internal processing methods—provided that sufficient traceability is maintained. The guide expressly condemns "artificial" payment delays based on IT difficulties.
This is the most anticipated answer, and it is affirmative. An invoice received via email, PDF, or paper after September 1, 2026, can be processed, recorded, and paid, and the corresponding VAT can be deducted, provided it corresponds to a real transaction and contains the necessary elements for processing. The recipient assesses it based on standard rules: the reality of the transaction, identification of the parties, required information, amount, VAT if applicable, and contractual payment terms.
The guide states in express terms that the mere fact that an invoice is not transmitted via the expected electronic channel does not automatically deprive the company of its right to deduction, which continues to be assessed based on the applicable substantive and formal conditions (CGI, art. 271; mandatory information: CGI, ann. II, art. 242 nonies A).
Note. This clarification resolves an uncertainty that was legitimately worrying financial departments. It makes a clear distinction between two types of obligations: on one hand, the conditions for the right to deduction, which fall under the substantive and formal rules of VAT; on the other hand, the specific obligation of electronic transmission, the failure of which is subject to specific penalties. Non-compliance with the latter does not, in itself, result in the forfeiture of the former. This position is consistent with the case law of the Court of Justice regarding the primacy of substantive conditions, but it was useful for the administration to state it publicly.
When a supplier is subject to the issuance obligation, the recipient may ask them to transmit or regularize the same invoice via the electronic channel. This request is not mandatory and does not constitute a condition for the validity, processing, or payment of an invoice received through another channel. Above all, the guide specifies that it should not be used to block commercial relations or artificially delay a due payment.
Receiving the same invoice through multiple channels should not lead to blocking its processing, but rather to reconciliation: comparing the invoice number, supplier, client, date, amounts excluding tax, VAT, and including all taxes, as well as the status of the electronic flow where applicable. In the event of a match, the company designates a reference invoice, continues the validation process on that basis alone, and marks the other copies as duplicates. Serious doubts should be limited to the specific invoice in question and addressed without delay, without blocking the entire process.
For large companies and intermediate-sized enterprises subject to the issuance obligation as of September 1, 2026, the obligation is not suspended by startup difficulties (whether they stem from the company, its service provider, or its information system).
The guide condemns an "all or nothing" approach: companies should not wait for their entire system to be perfectly stabilized before they start issuing invoices. They must transition the flows that are ready, prioritize the most significant or sensitive volumes, and organize the processing of residual situations according to an identified plan. This approach, the document specifies, also helps demonstrate that the company is not adopting a wait-and-see or avoidance strategy.
When the electronic circuit cannot be used immediately for a specific invoice or flow, transmission via an alternative channel (email, PDF, client portal, existing EDI) can help ensure continuity of processing and avoid blocking operations or cash flow. This transmission should not be analyzed as a new invoice when it relates to an invoice already issued or intended to be issued via the electronic circuit.
The guide does, however, set a clear limit: sending via an alternative channel should not become habitual when the electronic flow is functional, and a company subject to the issuance obligation cannot organize its target operations outside of the system on a long-term basis.
Perspective. A nuance worth noting has been overlooked in most commentary. Regarding companies already subject to the issuance obligation, the guide indicates that regularization via electronic transmission of the same invoice "is preferable, but not systematically required." What is required, however, is the ability to demonstrate that an active compliance trajectory is underway and being pursued, particularly when the invoice has not been regularized. In other words, the administration does not make invoice-by-invoice regularization a condition for leniency: it reasons based on the overall trajectory. This is a significant flexibility for high-volume companies, for whom individual regularization of thousands of invoices would be materially impractical. It shifts the focus from the flow to the evidentiary file.
If a company cannot identify its client's receiving platform, it must first verify the information used (SIREN, SIRET, recipient establishment, name, contractual data), then contact its own platform to determine if the issue stems from incorrect data, a lack of updates, or a routing failure. If the difficulty persists, it should contact its client directly, keeping a record of the steps taken. A standard channel may be used to bring the invoice to the client's attention if urgency justifies it, as a continuity measure.
The guide warns against the systematic multiplication of submissions via multiple channels: when the electronic flow can be tracked via available statuses, these statuses should be used to assess whether a supplementary submission is truly necessary.
The guide clearly separates two situations that internal procedures must handle differently.
A rejection originates from a platform and reflects a transmission or control issue: format error, missing or inconsistent mandatory data, incorrect party identification, routing difficulty, or a blocking anomaly. The company identifies the cause, corrects the invoice, and retransmits it via the electronic circuit. When the rejection prevents the recipient from accessing the invoice and a blockage is imminent, a duplicate may be sent via an alternative channel, clearly linked to the invoice in question.
A refusal originates from the buyer. This is a lifecycle status that must be justified and is reserved for reasons provided for by the standard: regulatory non-compliance not detected by the receiving platform, misaddressed invoice, or failure to comply with contractual conditions that prevent the invoice from being processed. The guide expressly states that it should not be used for a simple commercial dispute.
When the refusal is justified, the seller corrects the invoice and, if necessary, issues a new one (this new invoice must bear a new number, to avoid any confusion with the refused invoice and any rejection related to reusing the same number). When the seller contests the refusal, they should not automatically create a new invoice or credit note simply because a "refused" status has been applied: they must investigate the disagreement, retain the elements justifying their position, and document the subsequent actions taken.
Point of attention. The guide notes that when parties ultimately agree to maintain an initially refused invoice, they must be able to justify this decision, particularly in the event of discrepancies between data from the lifecycle, the pre-filled VAT return, and the returns actually filed. This is the first explicit signal of upcoming cross-checks: lifecycle statuses will feed into the pre-filling process, and any discrepancy between this pre-filling and the filed return will be a trigger for audit. Governance of these statuses is therefore becoming a full-fledged VAT issue, rather than a purely technical one.
Regularization must never create a duplicate: the same transaction must not lead to two payments, two accounting entries, or two declarative transmissions. Management of supplementary submissions must rely on available statuses: when they confirm that the invoice has been successfully transmitted and made available, sending a duplicate via another channel should be avoided, unless there is a specific need.
When a duplicate is issued, it must be clearly linked to the original invoice by including a mention such as "duplicate," "copy," or "continuity copy" on the document or in the accompanying information (invoice number, date, amount, original channel, reason for sending, and an indication that it is not a new invoice).
The guide provides an express tolerance for this requirement: during the rollout phase, the absence of an explicit mention on the document will not be penalized if the company can demonstrate that adding such a mention would have required specific development, that the document is clearly linked to the original invoice through other elements, and that the measures taken have prevented double payments, accounting entries, deductions, or declarations.
Companies whose mandatory issuance obligation does not begin until September 1, 2027 (SMEs, small businesses, and micro-enterprises) may voluntarily join the system as early as 2026 to test their tools, train their teams, and align their practices with those of their main clients. This voluntary adoption follows the reform's framework: transmission via an approved platform, complete and compliant invoices, and tracking of statuses and rejections.
Two points are worth noting for practitioners.
First, if voluntary issuance fails, the company may temporarily revert to its usual invoicing methods without being subject to penalties, as it is not yet legally bound by the obligation. It must simply avoid double invoicing, inform its client, and keep a record of the failure.
Second (and this point is of considerable practical importance in client/subcontractor relationships) a client cannot impose electronic invoicing on a supplier whose obligation does not begin until 2027. The guide states that a client must not refuse to process or pay an invoice solely because it is not electronic. Contractual agreements may naturally organize a paperless exchange, but these should not be confused with the legal obligation arising from the reform.
Practical advice. This response serves as a valid argument in commercial negotiations. SMEs facing a large client that demands electronic invoicing by September 2026 under threat of payment suspension can usefully point out that the reform does not establish such a requirement and that refusing payment solely on the basis of the format is not in line with the administration's position. We recommend anticipating this point when reviewing general terms of purchase imposed by major accounts.
The obligation to transmit transaction and, in some cases, payment data applies from September 1, 2026, for large companies and intermediate-sized enterprises (CGI, art. 290 and 290 A; ann. II, art. 242 nonies M to 242 nonies P; ann. IV, art. 41 septies I to P).
In the event of technical difficulties, the company must neither suspend its activity nor interrupt the operations in question. It should identify the source of the issue, contact its platform or software provider, and organize transmission as soon as it becomes possible again.
The guide suggests distinguishing between two situations: a one-off inability to transmit data that is otherwise available (in which case the data is stored, the incident is documented, and the delay is rectified) and an inability to correctly produce the expected data, which requires adjusting internal settings or processes. Two pitfalls are explicitly targeted: doing nothing while waiting for a global solution, or mass-transmitting clearly erroneous data to catch up on a delay.
Key point: a temporary e-reporting difficulty does not invalidate invoices, affect the payment of operations, or disrupt business continuity. E-reporting is an obligation to transmit data to the administration, distinct from the substantive rules governing the operation, the invoice, the payment, and the right to deduction.
The guide sets out a protective rule: a company should not be penalized solely for a failure attributable to a third party, provided it can demonstrate that it took the steps within its responsibility. Specifically, it must establish that it selected a solution capable of complying with the system, reported the difficulty to the provider, monitored the resolution of the incident, implemented transitional measures where necessary, and organized rectification whenever possible.
This exemption is therefore not automatic: it assumes that the company has managed its compliance and has not used a third-party failure to indefinitely delay its entry into the system. The expected evidence is precisely listed: correspondence with the provider, support tickets, incident notifications, announced reporting and resolution dates, affected flows, and the transitional solutions adopted.
When an incident involves the directory, the hub, or the exchange system, the guide notes that the mechanism is designed to prevent a temporary directory outage from blocking the entire invoicing process. Platforms can rely on previously retrieved directory copies or data, as well as technical addresses used in exchanges, particularly Peppol addresses when available and relevant.
Companies are not expected to resolve failures in public tools themselves. However, they must be able to demonstrate that they identified the incident, took appropriate measures to limit its impact, and did not use it as a pretext to delay their adoption of the system.
This is the core of the system. A serious roadmap does not require everything to be perfectly stable from day one; rather, it requires the company to have identified its obligations, initiated the necessary work, and organized a process for addressing any difficulties encountered.
The guide lists the following useful elements:
the selection or contracting of an approved platform;Conversely, a simple statement of intent is not enough: the company must provide concrete, dated, and consistent evidence. The administration's stated goal is to distinguish between genuine startup difficulties and a lack of preparation or a refusal to adopt the system.
Practical advice. We recommend creating a timestamped startup file without delay, centralizing all these documents and updating it as you go. This file serves a dual purpose: it documents your progress in the event of contact from the administration and forms the basis of your defense in case of any future challenges. Reconstructing it after the fact, once a difficulty has occurred, would considerably reduce its probative value—as the tax authorities specifically emphasize the dated and consistent nature of the evidence provided.
The tax authorities may contact businesses when they identify non-compliance or a significant issue. The primary goal of this approach is to understand the situation, verify the steps taken, and enable the business to get on a path toward compliance.
The guide clarifies, which is reassuring in practice, thatbusinesses are not expected to report every minor incident, isolated rejection, or difficulty that is quickly resolved : these situations should first be handled with the platform, software provider, accountant, or client, while keeping relevant records. However, when the tax authorities reach out to a business, it must respond in a complete and documented manner—as this dialogue does not constitute authorization to remain outside the system.
The answer to the twenty-ninth question is the most discussed and the most delicate to interpret. Sanctions will not be applied immediately, automatically, or blindly simply because a business encounters a startup difficulty, provided that this difficulty is genuine, documented, and followed by corrective actions. However, this approach does not mean that the obligation is postponed or suspended.
The guide sets out the criteria that the tax authorities will use, and this list should be read as a risk assessment framework:
The guide reiterates that the regulations provide for sanctions. Failure to comply with the electronic invoicing obligation is punishable by a fine per invoice, within the limits set by Article 1737 of the French General Tax Code (CGI). Failure to comply with the data transmission obligations set out in Articles 290 and 290 A is subject to the regime under Article 1788 D. Regarding receipt, failure to use an approved platform triggers a formal notice mechanism—providing a three-month period to comply—before a fine is applied, under the conditions set out in Article 1737, IV bis of the CGI.
The guide expressly outlines what the startup approach does not cover
Perspective. The distinction between documented technical difficulty and deliberate inertia is, in principle, welcome: it aligns with the logic of the right to make mistakes. However, it places the company in an asymmetrical evidentiary position. It is not the tax authorities that will have to prove bad faith; it is the company that will have to demonstrate its good faith by producing documentation. Yet the criteria used ("reality" of the difficulty, "quality" of the documentation, "speed" of the correction) are flexible standards, the assessment of which will largely be left to the discretion of the department. In the absence of a legal basis and enforceable doctrine within the meaning of Article L. 80 A of the LPF, the boundary between excusable difficulty and sanctionable failure remains uncertain. This uncertainty argues, in our view, for rigorous and proactive documentation rather than reliance on promised leniency.
In light of the entire guide, we believe five areas of work should be addressed without delay.
Designate the receiving platform. This is the first item the authorities will look for, and the only one that materially conditions the ability to receive compliant invoices by September 1st. Failure to use an approved platform is also the only situation for which the text expressly provides for a three-month prior formal notice.
Map the workflows. Distinguish what is ready from what is not, switch the former immediately, and formalize a dated action plan for the latter. The guide explicitly advises against waiting for complete stabilization.
Adapt internal procedures. Processing invoices received outside the electronic system, identifying and marking duplicates, distinguishing between technical rejection and reasoned refusal, managing lifecycle statuses, and systematically archiving error messages.
Review client contractual requirements. Particularly those that might condition payment on electronic invoicing before the supplier's legal deadline.
Open and maintain the evidence file. Contracts, schedules, tests, correspondence, tickets, remediation plans, internal guidelines—all timestamped.
The administration's stance can be summarized as follows: comply where possible, continue operations where necessary, document everything, and demonstrate progress toward full compliance. It is this final requirement, rather than the stated tolerance, that will determine a company's actual exposure to the risk of sanctions.
%20(1).webp)
Partner
%20(1).webp)
Partner
Discover the latest news on indirect taxation and the firm.
.webp)
.webp)