3 ms·

Nice idea, but please check your local tax office. At least here in the Netherlands, you are required to use a monotically increasing series for invoice numbers

by wokkel 5y ago

Nice idea, but please check your local tax office. At least here in the Netherlands, you are required to use a monotically increasing series for invoice numbers. So I wouldn't do this if I were you.

silon42 5y ago
You can't stop anyone from doing what he describes if you allow customers to see the invoice number. IMO, your sequential sequence number should be for tax audit purposes only.
- miken123 5y ago
  That may be your opinion, but an invoice in at least the Netherlands needs an monotonically increasing number. And it needs to be on the invoice and your customer needs to be able to see it. [edit] It's even EU-wide, see article 226(2) of directive 2006/112/EC: > a sequential number, based on one or more series, which uniquely identifies the invoice;
  - d_k_f 5y ago
    Nothing stops you from using the "...or more series" part to generate numbers that are specific to the day, the hour or, if you feel like it, the minute. Today's first invoice could be 2021-07-16-001, the second one 2021-07-16-002, etc. If you really don't want people to be able to guess your invoice volume from numbers alone, there are various ways to do that while still being compliant to EU laws.
    - zimpenfish 5y ago
      I think e.g. 2021-07-16-123 followed by 2021-07-17-001 wouldn't fall under "sequential number" though because, well, they're not sequential. The Italian authorities seem to see this the same way - https://vatdesk.eu/en/eu-vat-news/italy-mandatory-mentions-on-invoice/ https://vatdesk.eu/en/eu-vat-news/italy-mandatory-mentions-o... (Annoyingly the directive doesn't give a definition for "a sequential number" itself.)
      - d_k_f 5y ago
        They are sequential for all intents and purposes, they are simply using two separate series within the same number – you are perfectly able to determine the order of the invoices. I do agree that (as is so often the case) the directive is not specific enough to determine whether the Italian interpretation is correct or not, though I can provide some context from the German side as provided by the ministry of finance: "Eine lückenlose Abfolge der ausgestellten Rechnungsnummern ist nicht zwingend"[1] (~ "it is not required for the invoice numbers to be gapless"), which directly contradicts the Italians as far as I understand it. [1] https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/BMF_Schreiben/Steuerarten/Umsatzsteuer/Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass/Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass-aktuell-Stand-2021-06-28.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=47 https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/... - p. 522, 14.5 (10) 4
        zimpenfish 5y ago
        > you are perfectly able to determine the order of the invoices. But you can't determine if there are any gaps which is what the Italian ruling seemed to be concerned with (as best I could follow the Google translation which was pretty bad) and the Germans aren't bothered about. I think if it were me, I'd ere on the side of caution and have them be sequential (ordered, gapless).

by wokkel 5y ago

Nice idea, but please check your local tax office. At least here in the Netherlands, you are required to use a monotically increasing series for invoice numbers. So I wouldn't do this if I were you.

silon42 5y ago

You can't stop anyone from doing what he describes if you allow customers to see the invoice number. IMO, your sequential sequence number should be for tax audit purposes only.

miken123 5y ago
That may be your opinion, but an invoice in at least the Netherlands needs an monotonically increasing number. And it needs to be on the invoice and your customer needs to be able to see it. [edit] It's even EU-wide, see article 226(2) of directive 2006/112/EC: > a sequential number, based on one or more series, which uniquely identifies the invoice;
- d_k_f 5y ago
  Nothing stops you from using the "...or more series" part to generate numbers that are specific to the day, the hour or, if you feel like it, the minute. Today's first invoice could be 2021-07-16-001, the second one 2021-07-16-002, etc. If you really don't want people to be able to guess your invoice volume from numbers alone, there are various ways to do that while still being compliant to EU laws.
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    I think e.g. 2021-07-16-123 followed by 2021-07-17-001 wouldn't fall under "sequential number" though because, well, they're not sequential. The Italian authorities seem to see this the same way - https://vatdesk.eu/en/eu-vat-news/italy-mandatory-mentions-on-invoice/ https://vatdesk.eu/en/eu-vat-news/italy-mandatory-mentions-o... (Annoyingly the directive doesn't give a definition for "a sequential number" itself.)
    - d_k_f 5y ago
      They are sequential for all intents and purposes, they are simply using two separate series within the same number – you are perfectly able to determine the order of the invoices. I do agree that (as is so often the case) the directive is not specific enough to determine whether the Italian interpretation is correct or not, though I can provide some context from the German side as provided by the ministry of finance: "Eine lückenlose Abfolge der ausgestellten Rechnungsnummern ist nicht zwingend"[1] (~ "it is not required for the invoice numbers to be gapless"), which directly contradicts the Italians as far as I understand it. [1] https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/BMF_Schreiben/Steuerarten/Umsatzsteuer/Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass/Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass-aktuell-Stand-2021-06-28.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=47 https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/... - p. 522, 14.5 (10) 4
      - zimpenfish 5y ago
        > you are perfectly able to determine the order of the invoices. But you can't determine if there are any gaps which is what the Italian ruling seemed to be concerned with (as best I could follow the Google translation which was pretty bad) and the Germans aren't bothered about. I think if it were me, I'd ere on the side of caution and have them be sequential (ordered, gapless).