BMF circular on e-invoicing

Our website already contains a wealth of information on e-invoicing. We will therefore only address the most important changes resulting from the BMF circular dated 15 October 2025.

Distinction between different types of errors

From the outset, businesses and consultants have given a lot of thought to what happens if something is wrong with an e-invoice. The BMF has regulated this area in a structured manner and identified three different types of errors and their consequences.

1. Format errors: The invoice does not meet the requirements for an e-invoice because the file does not comply with the permitted syntax or technical specifications, or because it does not allow correct and complete extraction in the case of a freely agreed format. It can therefore only be considered a different invoice type in another electronic format. If, despite the e-invoicing obligation, no e-invoice is available, the different invoice type does not generally entitle the recipient to deduct input VAT. Suitable validation tools can be used to check whether there is a format error.
2. Business rule errors: Business rules are technical regulations for checking the logical dependencies of the information contained. Business rule No. 29, for example, requires that the end date must be either the same as the start date or later if both the start date of the invoice period and the end date are specified. Errors can consist of missing or contradictory information. The consequences of business rule errors depend on whether there is also a content error (see below). If this is not the case, the business rule error is irrelevant for VAT purposes, i.e. it does not jeopardise the input VAT deduction from the invoice concerned. Business rule errors are detected by suitable validation tools and marked as "critical errors", for example.
3. Content errors: In the case of a content error, mandatory invoice details are missing or incorrect – for example, the description of the supply is wrong. In this case, there is no right to input VAT deduction.

Importance of validation tools

Validation tools filter out format and business rule errors, but often cannot detect content errors. To stick with the above example, a validation tool cannot check whether the description of the supply is correct. The use of a validation tool therefore does not release the taxable person from the obligation to check for content errors, and input VAT deduction is not permitted in the event of a content error.

However, if the taxable person complies with the due diligence obligations of a prudent businessman, they can rely on the technical result of the validation (i.e. with regard to format and business rule errors) of a suitable tool. The validation report should be kept as proof.  The Federal Ministry of Finance does not state this explicitly, but this can only mean that the right to input VAT deduction persists.

Further changes (a selection)

It is not sufficient for mandatory VAT information to be included only in an appendix and for the structured part of the invoice to refer to the appendix. Only supplementary information that is not mandatory may be included in the appendix.

A reference to mandatory information via a link is also not sufficient.

With regard to the storage of e-invoices, this BMF circular follows on from a circular published on 14 July 2025 on the GoBD (principles for the proper management and storage of books, records and documents in electronic form and for data access): Only the structured part must be retained for eight years, unless the human-readable part of a hybrid invoice contains additional or deviating information that is relevant for taxation purposes. Simply storing and archiving outside a GoBD-compliant data processing system does not constitute a violation of the obligation under §14b (1) German VAT Act to retain a duplicate of the invoice and therefore does not result in a fine under § 26a (1) sentence 2 no. 2 German VAT Act. Nor does this call into question the integrity of the content within the meaning of § 14 (3) UStG, which must be guaranteed for every e-invoice. However, there may be a violation of obligations under the General Tax Code.

Rules of application

The principles of this BMF circular apply to all transactions carried out after 31 December 2024. This is consistent, as the e-invoicing obligation is also linked to the date of supply and not to the date of issue of the invoice. However, the various transition periods with regard to the obligation to issue e-invoices must be taken into account: if the supplier makes use of a transition period, neither they nor the recipient are affected by this BMF circular.

Impacts

The BMF's clear categorisation of errors and their consequences is to be welcomed, as is the extensive reference to validation tools, which play such an important role in practice. The BMF places a strong focus on the suitability of the tool. The problem is that a large number of tool providers are currently entering the market. It can be difficult for businesses to assess whether a particular tool filters out all critical errors and can therefore be considered suitable in the sense intended in  the BMF circular. In such cases, it may be advisable to seek qualified advice at the interface between VAT and IT. Forvis Mazars has such an interdisciplinary team of consultants. If necessary, the licensing of tool providers should be considered.

The BMF already answered the big question of what happens if a different invoice type is issued despite the e-invoicing requirement in its circular from last year. This answer has explosive potential that is not yet reflected in the current discussion on this topic: according to ECJ case law, the tax authorities may not refuse input VAT deduction even without correction of the other invoice by issuing an e-invoice if they have all the information necessary to check the material requirements. In the opinion of the BMF, this is regularly the case if the other invoice is factually correct and complete. One could heretically conclude from this that businesses can confidently do without e-invoicing. In practice, however, this should remain the exception, because such an attitude would at least lead to many time-consuming discussions with the tax authorities. In the medium term, there may be an explicit amendment to the VAT Directive that resolves the discrepancy between the basic e-invoicing obligation and the possibility of input VAT deduction without e-invoicing.

In the new world of e-invoicing, the question of whether corrections to incorrect or missing mandatory invoice details (according to the Federal Ministry of Finance, these are content errors) have retroactive effect remains important. According to case law, this is certainly the case if the invoice contains details of the supplier and the recipient, as well as a description of the supply, the remuneration and details of the separately shown VAT. This has an impact on the timing of the input VAT deduction.

Author: Nadia Schulte