Moving instead to the clearance model ,

[nurmohammadkhan]

The first difference that catches the eye is that in the clearance model the authority has an active role with respect to the transaction , since it actually validates the invoice before the operation itself is complete.

Instead, in the reporting model, the burden of proving the validity of an mexico whatsapp resource invoice falls on companies at a later point and not during the transaction.

Another interesting difference concerns the methods of transfer of relevant information between the taxpayer and the authority.

Regarding the reporting model, different compilation forms may be required . For example, Spain and Hungary have established their own specific XML standards , while Portugal and Poland use in full or in part the Standard Audit File for Tax (SAF-T) introduced by the OECD.

Moreover, this first type of approach is the one that is most applied in Europe and will spread most among the states of the Union.

The taxable person is obliged to send only the invoice and other commercial data relating to the transaction that the tax authority declares it wants to receive, record and approve. In this case, some standard communication models are used , such as the ISO20022 Invoice Tax Report, even if only as a transmission model to refer to.

This second system is definitely less widespread than the first one because administrations prefer to use an XML schema for invoices, so as not to have to depend on external standards.