Experiences of large companies with KSeF
During our recent webinar, KSeF: Experiences from Large Companies and Lessons for SMEs Before the April Launch , held on March 19th, we discussed entrepreneurs’ initial experiences with the mandatory KSeF. In most cases, they identified challenges that can be grouped into the following categories:
- problems related to the functioning of the KSeF itself,
- problems resulting from the operation of internal accounting and financial systems,
- problems in cooperation with contractors,
- problems related to the costs of implementing KSeF.
In the previous post, we looked at the first two categories. Today, we’ll discuss the next two.
Problems in cooperation with contractors
The main challenges in collaborating with contractors stem from the structure of the structured invoice schema. It contains strict guidelines for including mandatory invoice elements, leaving taxpayers with a degree of freedom in choosing where to include additional elements beyond the mandatory data.
Including such optional elements on a structured invoice can be important for many reasons. The KSeF is a quasi-invoice cloud, which includes all invoices issued to a given taxpayer, based on their Tax Identification Number (NIP). To facilitate their distribution among specific departments or individuals, and ultimately, for assignment, accounting, and payment processing, it is desirable for the invoice to include additional data allowing for its linking to a specific expense.
However, this is made more difficult because providing additional data is essentially a decision made by the invoice issuer (which, of course, should take into account business considerations). Requests in this regard are often ignored, either due to a reluctance to add to the work or due to system limitations.
Often, even if contractors decide to include additional elements, they choose different locations within the structured invoice to present the same data. Consequently, invoice recipients are unable to implement full automation and must resort to manual solutions to properly assign and record the invoice.
The same problem also affects invoice issuers – they receive requests from contractors to include the same data in different places on the invoice. However, this is often impossible due to system limitations and its design to place one piece of data in a specific location.
KSeF implementation costs
In theory, using the KSeF should be free. The Ministry of Finance has launched free tools such as the Taxpayer Application and conducted a number of free training courses. In practice, however, using the ministry’s facilities only makes sense for small businesses and is problematic for entities with complex, numerous processes. In their case, it was necessary to adapt internal systems, procedures, and processes to work with the KSeF, which involved expenses that the entrepreneurs themselves describe as “massive” or “horrendous.” Furthermore, there were also expenses incurred to adapt to the new JPK_VAT scheme, which was amended in conjunction with the KSeF’s implementation.
Taxpayers often point out that the costs they incur are disproportionate to the benefits achieved by the Ministry of Finance, which (according to entrepreneurs) already has a lot of information about them.
Summary
Practice shows that the greatest challenges associated with KSeF stem not solely from the technology itself, but from its impact on business relationships and daily operational processes. The lack of a uniform approach to optional data and system limitations on both sides of the transaction significantly hinder automation and increase the workload for finance departments.
At the same time, the implementation of KSeF means significant expenditure for many entities, both technological and organizational, which in practice significantly goes beyond the use of available public tools.
Therefore, it’s crucial not only to technically adapt to new requirements, but also to streamline the rules of cooperation with contractors and properly design internal processes. In this area, the support of a tax advisor will help mitigate risks, streamline implementation, and tailor solutions to the specific needs of a specific organization.
