VeriFactu: The Transparent Digital Invoice

VeriFactu or non-VeriFactu presents two ways of managing invoice records: with automatic submission to the Tax Agency (AEAT) or with internal retention of records. We analyse the differences between both options and what should be considered before making a decision.

What changes with VeriFactu or non-VeriFactu

The new framework focuses not only on the invoice itself, but on the system that generates it. That system must guarantee the integrity, retention, accessibility, legibility, and traceability of records. The distinction between VeriFactu and non-VeriFactu lies precisely in how those records are managed and, where applicable, how they are submitted.

Under the VeriFactu option, invoicing records are sent automatically to the Tax Agency. Under the non-VeriFactu option, the system retains them without automatic submission, but must offer equivalent guarantees of security and consistency. The question, therefore, is not which option complies and which does not, but which model better fits the company's actual working practices.

What distinguishes the two options

At first glance, the difference seems straightforward: automatic submission versus internal retention. However, that simplification can be misleading if it is not examined at the operational level.

The VeriFactu option offloads part of the process through automatic record submission. The non-VeriFactu option requires the company to take more direct responsibility for the custody and consistency of those records. For this reason, the decision should not be made based on apparent convenience, but on a more specific question: what is the organisation's actual capacity to maintain that level of control in an orderly and continuous manner.

What choosing one option or the other means for the company

Choosing between VeriFactu and non-VeriFactu is not merely a formal matter. It affects how invoicing is handled day-to-day, the role of the technology provider, and the level of control the company must maintain over its records.

Before deciding, it is advisable to review at least the following:

• Invoicing volume and the complexity of the administrative workflow
• Internal capacity to retain records with sufficient guarantees
• The degree of dependence on the software and its provider
• The maturity of existing internal controls

The VeriFactu option may be more convenient for organisations looking to automate part of the process. The non-VeriFactu option demands greater internal discipline in the retention and management of records. The practical difference lies in the organisational burden each option places on the company.

Practical impact

The choice between VeriFactu and non-VeriFactu affects day-to-day operations more than it may initially appear. It changes not only the technical layer of the system, but also how invoicing information is validated, recorded, and retained. In companies with inconsistent processes, that difference can become apparent very quickly.

Impact on daily operations

If the company works with multiple stakeholders, informal approval workflows, or poorly integrated ancillary tools, either option will require a prior review. Under VeriFactu, automatic submission means data quality must be reinforced before issuing an invoice. Under non-VeriFactu, the pressure shifts to the custody and consistency of the record. In both cases, there is no longer room for ambiguous or poorly documented procedures.

Impact on internal control and accountability

The decision also affects who bears responsibility for oversight. Is it clear who reviews errors, who validates corrections, and who is accountable for record retention? In many companies, that allocation is not fully defined. Choosing between VeriFactu and non-VeriFactu should therefore not be framed as a technical preference, but as a decision that requires clarifying responsibilities and reducing reliance on manual or improvised practices.

What to review and address

Before selecting an option, the prudent course is to review how the invoicing process actually operates. Making the decision without that prior analysis may lead to choosing a model that, in practice, does not align with the company's capacity to sustain it in an orderly manner.

Review the software and the provider's position

The first step is to confirm whether the system in use supports proper operation under the chosen option and whether the provider can explain this clearly. A generic assurance of compliance is not sufficient. It is advisable to request specific information on functionality, record retention, chaining, and the elements associated with the system.

Analyse the actual process before deciding

It is also worth reviewing how invoices are issued, validated, corrected, and retained. A company with well-defined processes will be better placed to meet certain requirements. If invoicing depends on manual interventions or inconsistent controls, the decision should be approached with greater caution.

Identify recurring errors before they become risks

Continuing to invoice with tools that do not meet the required framework, relying on partial solutions, or failing to verify whether the system correctly generates the necessary elements are common mistakes. So is assuming that choosing one option resolves underlying issues of internal organisation. It does not — it only makes them more visible.

Professional perspective

From an advisory standpoint, the question should not be framed as "which option seems more convenient," but rather as "which option can the company best sustain with its current resources." That distinction matters. A technically valid decision can prove inadequate if the organisation lacks the level of internal control that option demands in practice.

When analysing VeriFactu versus non-VeriFactu, it is therefore important to look beyond the provider or the tool. The underlying question is different: if tomorrow it were necessary to demonstrate how an invoice is generated, validated, and retained, would the internal process provide a clear answer? That is the criterion that leads to a more grounded and reliable decision.

Conclusion

The choice between VeriFactu and non-VeriFactu should not be resolved by intuition or inertia. Both options require compliance, but they distribute the management of records and the burden of control differently. Before deciding, it is therefore advisable to review not only the software, but also the company's actual capacity to sustain that model without operational weaknesses.

At Navarro, we understand that decisions of this kind are not resolved by the technology alone. They require analysing how the chosen option fits the company's structure, processes, and internal responsibilities.

If you would like to assess which option may be most appropriate for your company, please contact our team using the form below.