Patricia Martínez Ruiz
The publication of the informative note of the Tax Agency extending the deadlines for the adaptation of the invoicing systems to VeriFactu has been received by many companies with relief. The general feeling is understandable: there is more time, less immediate urgency and room to continue operating as before.
However, this reading, although humane, is incomplete.
The extension does not change the meaning of the rule, nor its scope, nor the control model that the Administration is building. The only thing that changes is the timetable. And when the timetable relaxes, an opportunity appears that many organizations miss: to decide with criteria, and not under pressure.
Because Veri*Factu is not a procedure to be fitted into a future agenda. It is a structural change in the way we understand the control of the invoicing process.
What Veri*Factu really is (and what it is not)
Veri*Factu is not a system for sending information to the IRS, nor a “light” version of the SII. It is a model that acts at the origin of the process: at the moment the invoice is generated.
The regulations require that computerized billing systems ensure that each invoice:
- is born with integrity,
- leaves a verifiable trace,
- cannot be altered without leaving evidence,
- and can be technically and documentarily verified.
This is a significant change compared to previous approaches, where control took place a posteriori. With Veri*Factu, the focus clearly shifts to prevention, not correction.
Therefore, to reduce Veri*Factu to “just another obligation” is to misunderstand its real scope.
Extension of deadlines. Less urgency, same responsibility
The extension of deadlines communicated by the Tax Agency responds to an obvious reality: the technical impact of Veri*Factu on invoicing systems is not minor. Correctly adapting processes requires analysis, tests and well-founded decisions.
However, the extension does not eliminate the obligation or lower the technical requirements. It simply allows additional time to get it right.
Here appears the difference between two types of organizations. Those that interpret the extension as a reason to wait, and those that understand it as a window to decide without urgency. The latter are those that tend to avoid improvised solutions and subsequent cost overruns.
Veri*Factu and SII. A comparison that should be made calmly
One of the side effects of VeriFactu has been reopening the debate on the SII. Many companies, having found that being in SII exempts them from applying Veri Factu, have interpreted this option as a natural escape route.
The problem is that Veri*Factu and SII respond to very different logics.
The SII is a system of almost immediate supply of tax information. It requires reporting a high volume of data in very short periods of time, with constant operational pressure. It is a demanding model, designed for organizations with the structural capacity to assume this burden.
Veri*Factu, on the other hand, does not increase the reporting rate. It reinforces the quality and reliability of the data from the moment the invoice is generated. From an internal control perspective, this has a clear advantage: less reliance on subsequent corrections and greater consistency of the entire process.
Therefore, although the SII exempts Veri*Factu, strategically it is not always the best alternative.
Why many companies choose Veri*Factu even though they can go to SII
More and more organizations are coming to a conclusion that does not always appear in the regulatory summaries: relying on SII to avoid Veri*Factu often moves the problem, not solves it.
IBS increases the daily exposure to error, demands very tight processes and turns any incident into a potential source of stress. Veri*Factu, on the other hand, reinforces the structural control of the billing system and facilitates a more stable compliance management.
From a financial and risk control point of view, this difference is key. Veri*Factu is not only a technical obligation. It is a management tool that reduces uncertainty and makes it easier to defend against audits or reviews.
That’s why, for many companies, Veri*Factu is not the “must have” option, but the smart choice.
The mistake of treating Veri*Factu as a purely normative project
One of the most common mistakes when approaching Veri*Factu is to treat it as a strictly regulatory project, limited to meeting a series of technical requirements before a specific date. This approach, focused solely on “being on time”, often results in tactical solutions that are poorly integrated and difficult to sustain over time. The standard is met, but control is not gained.
However, Veri*Factu raises a much deeper question that goes beyond the legal. It begs the question of whether there really is centralized, consistent and demonstrable control over the billing process. When that question is asked honestly, many organizations discover that the real challenge is not the regulation itself, but the absence of a clear layer of governance over tax compliance. The regulation does not create the problem; it simply highlights it.
Decide now. A strategic advantage not to be missed.
In this context, the recent extension of deadlines takes on a different meaning. It does not eliminate the decision, but it does change its nature. It allows Veri*Factu to be addressed without the pressure of urgency, with room to analyze alternatives, design a coherent approach and avoid decisions conditioned by the calendar. To decide now is not to get ahead of oneself unnecessarily, but to do so with control and predictability.
Organizations that choose to wait tend to face a less favorable scenario later on: fewer options, less choice and higher operating costs. On the other hand, those that take advantage of this period to make a sound decision transform a future obligation into a strategic decision.
From i3s, we support organizations that want to address VeriFactu from this structural logic. For this purpose, we provide you with Bidalnet Compliance Plattforma platform designed to govern tax compliance in a centralized and sustainable way. It was not born as a punctual answer to Veri Factu, but as an approach to ensure the traceability, integrity and control of the billing process regardless of how regulations evolve.
Its value lies precisely in avoiding reactive solutions and providing stability in the medium and long term, reducing dependence on improvised decisions every time the regulatory environment changes.
Because, ultimately, VeriFactu is not an immediate urgency, but an unavoidable decision. The extension does not eliminate the challenge; it simply grants the possibility of addressing it better. The relevant question is not whether Veri Factu applies today or tomorrow, nor whether SII is a possible alternative, but which model offers more control, less operational risk and more financial predictability in the medium term.
Answering this question ahead of time is an advantage.
Answering it in a hurry is never an advantage.
