Veri*Factu is a protocol or format for a digital invoicing system that is intended to be made mandatory in Spain for entrepreneurs. The system must guarantee that (digital) invoices are immutable, traceable and authentic.
To achieve this, electronic signatures, hashes and QR codes are built in, and the data is automatically forwarded to the Spanish Tax Agency (AEAT).
The system is presented as the next step in digital transformation. It promises higher security, less fraud and simpler reporting.
When will it start?
The implementation is phased and the deadlines have been postponed several times already, but the schedule is now as follows:
- From 29 July 2025, software providers may only offer Veri*Factu‑compliant software in Spain;
- From 1 January 2026, companies (legal entities) are obliged to use this format;
- From 1 July 2026, the self‑employed are obliged to use this format;
- AEAT was supposed to offer a free e‑invoicing platform for small businesses from July 2025 via MiFacturaeE, but this is not operational for the time being.
Effectiveness
Combating fraud is a legitimate goal. The question is whether this system is effective. Every entrepreneur already reports their invoicing every quarter, reports every cross‑border transaction and must submit once a year a special list of all transactions above €3,000 (Modelo 347).
Those who want to commit fraud by concealing revenue simply do so today by not issuing an invoice and accepting payment in cash. In that way, turnover remains out of sight of the tax authorities and the black economy persists.
Under Veri*Factu this will be no different. The system cannot prevent the black economy.
Benefits (according to the government)
The government touts the following benefits:
- Less invoice fraud;
- Real‑time data for the tax authority;
- More trust for the customer;
- Automation & administrative relief;
- Level playing field.
But how solid are these arguments in reality?
1. Less invoice fraud
According to the government, manipulation afterwards (such as deleting or modifying invoices) would be made impossible. This indeed addresses administrative fraud, but not the “cash without invoice” practice.
There are no specific statistics showing that this particular type of fraud constitutes a major problem. Most known figures on invoice fraud concern fake invoices or phishing; often an issue of internal corporate control, not of tax fraud.
Conclusion: this argument is not convincing. Veri*Factu only tackles a limited form of fraud that is not representative of the real problem.
2. Real‑time data for the tax authority
AEAT obtains direct access to invoice flows. That sounds impressive: discrepancies between supplier and customer bookings would be detected more quickly and carousel fraud would become more difficult.
But again; fraud must occur first before a signal can arise. A lengthy legal and practical investigation follows. Real‑time software cannot speed that up. Moreover, organised fraudsters adapt their methods very quickly. They work with straw men and companies that disappear after a short time.
Conclusion: real‑time data provides the tax authority with more data, but does not prevent fraud. In practice, this argument is a non‑argument.
3. More trust for the customer
Invoices receive a QR code and verification, allowing customers to see whether the invoice has been submitted to AEAT. But in reality, the average customer will not check this or will not consider it important. For the customer, it is about price and quality, not about whether the invoice has been reported to the tax authority.
Conclusion: this advantage exists only on paper and has no practical meaning.
4. Automation & administrative relief
A frequently cited benefit is that duplicate reports, such as the annual Modelo 347 (list of transactions > €3,000), would become redundant. But that report is already largely automated and literally “a push of a button”. It hardly burdens entrepreneurs. In its place comes a system where every invoice must be processed in real time, provided with QR codes and digital signatures, and sent to AEAT. This actually means more administration, higher software costs and more hassle.
Conclusion: this benefit does not hold up. It is a non‑argument that conceals the burden for entrepreneurs.
5. Level playing field
The government claims that Veri*Factu protects honest entrepreneurs against competitors who manipulate their administration. But the real problem of unfair competition lies in the black economy and that is not affected by Veri*Factu.
Conclusion: this argument also falls away.
Final Conclusion
Veri*Factu is presented as modernisation and fraud prevention. In reality, it represents a substantial expansion of fiscal surveillance. And also:
- For entrepreneurs: higher costs, more obligations, loss of privacy;
- For customers: no noticeable benefit;
- For the government: real‑time access to detailed data and more control options.
The result: the honest entrepreneur foots the bill for expensive software, extra administration and even more distrust. Meanwhile, the black economy remains out of sight. The government would be better off focusing its energy on targeted detection and tackling of organised fraud instead of introducing a mass system that primarily hits the wrong people.
With Veri*Factu, the fraudster is the one laughing and entrepreneurs and citizens are the losers.
Roeland van Passel