EBPP
EBPP is the abbreviation for e lectronic b ill p resentment and p ayment ("electronic invoicing and payment"). This can range from an email- based solution to a complete electronic payment system.
A distinction is made between the following criteria and functionalities in EBPP systems:
- Format of the invoice data
- Bill presentment - presentation of the bill
- Bill payment - payment option
Furthermore, two different models of the EBPP can be distinguished:
- the direct billing model
- the consolidator model
Direct billing model
With this model, the invoicing company offers its own customers the service of viewing invoices electronically either by e-mail or via a protected area of their own website by logging in with user name and password .
Direct billing (also called e-billing) refers to the direct relationship between the company and the customer.
Advantages:
- Customers can carry out any technically possible actions within their own system (e.g. registration for other services, access to detailed data, etc.)
- Real-time access to billing data possible (hot billing)
- greatest possible flexibility
Disadvantage:
- high implementation costs
- high maintenance effort
- generally low acceptance by end customers, due to access data (at least URL, username, password)
Many companies from the telecommunications , Internet service providers and energy supply industries have developed their own direct billing solutions for their customers in recent years. Due to the generally weak acceptance of consumers averaging 3–8% per industry, direct access to end customers is increasingly being called into question.
Consolidator model
Instead of the direct connection between the invoice issuer and the invoice recipient, the invoices are summarized and consolidated on a neutral platform . The invoice recipient can thus use this platform for all invoicing parties participating in this consolidator and access it via one access.
If the consolidator is integrated into an existing infrastructure , such as the electronic banking of a bank , the invoice recipients can usually use this service without additional access data.
Advantages:
- New participants, bill recipients and billers can use the Consolidator's existing customer base
- Service can be used as a web service , usually no high entry costs
- The operator of the consolidator platform is responsible for further development
- Liability for legal aspects, such as B. Input tax deductibility is assumed by the operator of the Consolidator platform
- Multiplier effect: advertising measures by billers for the participation of their customers are reflected in all other billers
Disadvantage:
- Less flexibility, as standard formats of the consolidator must be supported
- Hot billing is mostly not possible
Legal framework
In order for an electronic invoice to entitle input tax to be deducted in the same way as a paper invoice , it had to have a qualified electronic signature in Germany by 2011 (cf. § 14 UStG a. G.) within the meaning of the Signature Act . Since July 1, 2011, according to the Tax Simplification Act 2011, with which the EU Directive 2010/45 / EU was implemented, electronic invoices and classic paper invoices have been treated equally in Germany in order to make business processes easier and more economical . In Austria, the regulations apply from January 1, 2013. A qualified electronic signature has therefore no longer been the only security method for electronic invoices since 2011. In addition to the technical procedures (signature and EDI / EDIFACT), the so-called reliable audit trail is permitted as an organizational procedure. When and which procedure is used depends on the type of business relationship and the practical options for verifying identity information (cf. §§ 11 and 12 of the Money Laundering Act ) about the contractual partner.
practice
In practice, invoices are increasingly sent as PDF files attached to an email. The invoice recipient prints it out and stores it like any other paper-based invoice. Since invoices in Germany (unlike in other European countries) are usually not signed, the printed invoice can no longer be seen to be an electronic invoice. However, such an approach is not permitted under tax law.
However, the risk with the external sales tax audit is not that the auditor checks the receipts to see whether they have been printed out or whether they have been transmitted electronically.
The verification always comes from the sending company. I.e. In the case of an external audit in the sending company, it is found that electronic invoices were created without a qualified signature within the meaning of § 2 No. 3 SigG or which do not meet the requirements of § 14 UStG. This is easy to determine, since every company has a retention obligation according to the principles of proper IT-supported accounting systems . The tax office then sends a cross message to all the tax offices concerned that invalid documents have been sent to the recipient.
As a result, the auditor comes to the recipient's house and already knows the electronically transmitted documents. He then only checks whether the recipient has fulfilled his obligation under § 15 UStG and has removed the invoices sent without a signature. However, if the recipient has deducted the input tax contained in these electronic invoices without the requirements of Section 15 UStG having been met, these input tax amounts will be reclaimed.
Web links
- Framework conditions and market overview (PDF; 2.86 MB) on ebusiness-lotse-ostbayern.de from ibi research at the University of Regensburg GmbH
Individual evidence
- ↑ Essay, Kirmes, On the status of the liberalization of security regulations for electronic invoices . ( Memento of the original from March 22, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 518 kB) In: Die Steuerberatung (Stbg), 7/2011, pp. 299–310.
