International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Will EU SAF-T reporting be the death of VAT returns?

VAT Return die 320

Richard Asquith, vice president of global indirect tax at Avalara, provides an analysis of the revolutionary standard audit files for tax (SAF-T) filing requirements that are sweeping across Europe.

SAF-T filing will give tax authorities live access to companies’ VAT and direct tax liabilities. Six European countries have already implemented SAF-T, the OECD-backed electronic format for exchanging data. One of the most significant moves in recent months was Poland making SAF-T filings compulsory for local and non-resident VAT payers from July 1 2016.

The changes could result in tax authorities taking control of companies’ tax calculations and making the self-assessment and backward-looking VAT and corporate income tax returns redundant.

SAF-T accounting transaction exchange wins format wars

SAF-T is an electronic format for the efficient transfer of accounting data from companies to tax authorities. In May 2005, the OECD coordinated a single format, based on free-source XML, for all 38 member states to adopt. The objectives of this implementation were:

  • To help the exchange of transaction data between tax authorities and companies;

  • Allow efficient and accurate data interchange;

  • Improve substantive testing at line-level for tax authorities, which means the tax office can examine each supply of a good or service listed on an invoice to consider the description, quantity, value, etc.;

  • Enable VAT and corporate income tax audits; and

  • Reduce companies’ compliance costs, including internal and external audit costs.

The OECD model consists of six file “structures”, which are to list all transactions:

  1. General ledger, journals;

  2. Accounts receivable, customer master data and invoices;

  3. Accounts payable, supplier master data. Invoices and payments;

  4. Stock warehouse, product master file and goods received/dispatched;

  5. Fixed assets, ledger and depreciation/amortisation; and

  6. Inventory, product master files and movements.

Inconsistent and imprecise implementation

To date, six European countries have adopted SAF-T reporting obligations for VAT registered companies. The challenge for taxpayers is that each country’s format differs from the above OECD structures. In addition, only vague implementation guidance is available.


Elements that differ from OECD structures


Applies only four structures


Has introduced a simplified basis structure only


Threatening legal action against non-compliant companies


Has created a proprietary format that must comply with “Plan Comptable”, the general accounting plan in France


Has introduced up to 68 sub-structures


The only country requiring mandatory filing for large taxpayers

The next wave of countries to adopt SAF-T may include Germany, UK, Ireland, and the Czech Republic.

The Netherlands and Belgium are experimenting with another electronic format called “Transaction Network Analysis”, which is a “big data” experiment where tax authorities share company data on a centralised database and the analytics are then tested. Its primary aim is to reduce VAT fraud and the VAT Gap. A further eight other European countries have now joined this program.

Implications of SAF-T

When tackling SAF-T, tax departments face a number of questions on its implementation, application and effectiveness, including:

  • Data extraction – What connector tools are available?

  • Tax audits – Are the tax authorities likely to initiate investigations, and what is the capacity to manage these satisfactorily?

  • Direct tax – SAF-T data also covers corporate income tax data that could be used for investigations. Questions remains over whether the tax department ready; and

  • Internal audits – Tax authorities need to examine the implications and cost savings of internal audit departments and data use.

Planning for SAF-T

When planning for SAF-T adoption, tax departments may consider a number of elements before introducing the format, such as:

  • Qualifying IT systems – Does the tax department have full details of all ERPs, stock, fixed assets, bank account platforms?

  • List systems and data – Do platforms hold all the country-required data?

  • Mapping to structures – Can the tax department use the data to create charts that adapt to various country structures?

  • Extraction of data – What methodologies can be used? ERP, Excel or bespoke extractors?

  • Testing – How can the tax department ensure accuracy of data before transfer to tax authorities? Can the tax departments match tax authorities’ extensive analytical tools?

Death of the VAT and direct tax return?

The immediate question for corporate tax teams is their exposure to the surprise decision in June to make Polish VAT payers liable to submit SAF-T reporting from July 2016. Most businesses are not ready for this, and will be on the back foot as the tax authorities threaten fines.

In the medium term, VAT and direct tax managers within companies now face being outgunned by the tax authorities. Their powerful analytical tools, backed by pan-European data exchanges between tax authorities, will result in them having a better insight into companies’ tax affairs than the corporate tax team or CFO.

SAF-T therefore threatens to undermine the VAT return and potentially make it useless. Could SAF-T be the sunset of periodic returns? We will have to wait and see as more governments adopt electronic formats that could change the face of tax returns for all businesses.

Article contributed byRichard Asquith, vice president of global indirect tax at Avalara.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

ITR’s latest quarterly PDF is going live today, leading on the EU’s BEFIT initiative and wider tax reforms in the bloc.
COVID-19 and an overworked HMRC may have created the ‘perfect storm’ for reduced prosecutions, according to tax professionals.
Participants in the consultation on the UN secretary-general’s report into international tax cooperation are divided – some believe UN-led structures are the way forward, while others want to improve existing ones. Ralph Cunningham reports.
The German government unveils plans to implement pillar two, while EY is reportedly still divided over ‘Project Everest’.
With the M&A market booming, ITR has partnered with correspondents from firms around the globe to provide a guide to the deal structures being employed and tax authorities' responses.
Xing Hu, partner at Hui Ye Law Firm in Shanghai, looks at the implications of the US Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act for TP comparability analysis of China.
Karl Berlin talks to Josh White about meeting the Fair Tax standard, the changing burden of country-by-country reporting, and how windfall taxes may hit renewable energy.
Sandy Markwick, head of the Tax Director Network (TDN) at Winmark, looks at the challenges of global mobility for tax management.
Taxpayers should look beyond the headline criteria of the simplification regime to ensure that their arrangements meet the arm’s-length standard, say Alejandro Ces and Mark Seddon of the EY New Zealand transfer pricing team.
In a recent webinar hosted by law firms Greenberg Traurig and Clayton Utz, officials at the IRS and ATO outlined their visions for 2023.