Spain: Some clarifications on the issuing of corrective invoices

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Spain: Some clarifications on the issuing of corrective invoices

Sponsored by

logo.png
pencil-1037609 resized.jpg

Fernando Matesanz of Spanish VAT Services breaks down the tax authority’s recent proclamation on rectifying invoices, with the potential for more flexibility for businesses.

A common practice among companies is to rectify invoices for a wide variety of reasons (for example, due to an erroneous issue of the original invoice) by completely cancelling the invoice initially issued. They would then issue a new invoice, with a positive sign, with the correct data.

This method is not entirely in line with Spanish invoicing regulations. In this regard, there is only an obligation to issue a corrective invoice in the cases expressly provided for in the regulation and, in principle, in no other case. These cases are, for example, cases of formal or mathematical errors in the issuing of invoices or cases of modification of the VAT taxable amount. The latter is based on Article 90 of the VAT directive (cancellation of an ineffective transaction, alteration of the price, refusal to pay the invoiced amount, partial payment etc.).

Moreover, the form in which the amending invoice must be issued is perfectly defined in the rule. The corrective invoice must be a single invoice that either directly indicates the amount of the correction, with a positive or negative sign, or it indicates the definitive amount after the correction. The practice, therefore, of crediting an invoice in full to issue a new one correctly, does not seem to be defined as such in the Spanish invoicing regulations, despite being common among companies.

In recent weeks, the Spanish tax administration has issued an opinion that may be of interest as it gives some flexibility to companies wishing to rectify invoices they have previously issued. But upon analysing the opinion in detail, it seems to have more formal implications than may first appear.

Firstly, the administration points out that the fact that the regulations settle very specific grounds for issuing corrective invoices does not prevent invoices issued previously from being corrected voluntarily for any other reason. This is providing the reason is justified and if this practice allows the corresponding verification by the tax administration to be guaranteed. In these cases of voluntary modification of a previously issued invoice, the issuing of a rectifying invoice as defined as such in Spanish invoicing regulations will not be dealt with, but rather with the issuing of an ordinary invoice.

The administration also points out that to cover this very common practice among companies, the rectification may be carried out by issuing two different invoices. One with a negative sign (credit note), even for the total amount of the invoice previously issued, and another later one that rectifies the initial invoice, which has been cancelled with the previous credit note and which contains the correct information that should have been invoiced. Given that Spanish invoicing regulations provide for the issuing of a single rectifying invoice, the credit note with a negative sign, even for the total amount of the previously issued invoice, must be considered an ordinary invoice. The second invoice, which is issued containing the data documented on the invoice after the rectification, must be considered a rectifying invoice.

While this may seem simple, it has more implications than might be thought. For example, ordinary invoices must always be numbered sequentially, and those that are corrective invoices must be issued from a different series than normal invoices. When taking invoice numbering into account, it is important that the second invoice, which, according to the Spanish administration, is considered a rectifying invoice, is the one that must be issued from a separate series. Meanwhile the first invoice, the one that fully credits the invoice initially issued, must be numbered sequentially with the previous ones, since it is an ordinary invoice, despite having a negative sign.

This has an added difficulty in the case of taxable persons who must comply with the Suministro Inmediato de Información (SII). The SII consists of sending the tax authorities information on invoices issued and received in almost real time. Corrective invoices have a complicated configuration as far as the SII is concerned. It is therefore important to take these numbering and administrative aspects into account.

As outlined, the cases in which corrective invoices can be issued, and even the way in which they are issued, are made somewhat more flexible. But this flexibility may cause additional problems in terms of numbering and forwarding the information on these invoices to the tax authorities.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Wim Wuyts, who had been head of the specialist tax network since 2017, is moving on to a new role with WTS’s Belgian member firm
MNEs are increasingly using algorithmic tools in TP. Sahasranshu Dash argues that data ethics should therefore plug directly into the TP design process
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales also queried whether HMRC resources could be better spent scrutinising larger entities
Grant Thornton’s Austria tax head likens his practice to an escape room, shares his football coaching ambitions, and explains why tax is cool
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2025 EMEA Tax Awards
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2025 Asia-Pacific Tax Awards
The fates of pillars one and two hang in the balance after the US successfully threw its weight around in G7 and Canadian negotiations
Rafael Tena tells ITR about the ‘crazy’ Mexican market, ditching the hourly rate, and refusing to grow his fledgling firm in an ‘unstructured way’
It should be easy for advisers to be transparent about costs, Brown Rudnick partner Matthew Sharp said in response to exclusive ITR in-house data
The sprawling legislation phases out Joe Biden-era green tax incentives for businesses; in other news, the UK will reportedly maintain its DST despite US pressure
Gift this article