Tax authorities warn that structured invoice visualisations may be treated as fictitious invoices

During the legislative work related to the implementation of the National e-Invoicing System (KSeF), representatives of the Ministry of Finance repeatedly emphasised the need to ensure consistency between the structured invoice submitted to KSeF and its potential visualisation. Any discrepancies between the two documents were considered sufficient to result in their classification as two separate invoices, which could consequently trigger an obligation to pay VAT twice pursuant to Article 108 of the Polish VAT Act.

As further work on the implementation of KSeF progressed, attention shifted to other aspects of the system’s operation, while most taxpayers focused primarily on generating correct XML files. Recently, however, the Director of the National Tax Information Office (Director of KIS) issued individual tax rulings addressing the possibility of treating a visualisation of a structured invoice as a so-called “blank invoice”. It is worth analysing the content of one such ruling.

Different data in the XML file and PDF visualisation

In its application for an individual tax ruling, the taxpayer indicated that it intended to issue structured invoices through KSeF and, additionally, provide counterparties with visualisations of those invoices. The taxpayer’s intention was to send PDF visualisations alongside KSeF invoices, incorporating additional information required for specific business purposes.

The taxpayer identified the following scenarios:

• the PDF visualisation contains additional data not included in the structured invoice, although such data does not affect the classification of the transaction subject matter (in particular, none of the elements specified in Articles 106e and 106j of the Polish VAT Act);
• the structured invoice contains additional information (not required under the Polish VAT Act) which is not reflected in the PDF visualisation (e.g. where fields relating to charges or deductions are completed in the structured invoice, thereby increasing or decreasing the amount payable);
• certain elements of the PDF visualisation present data included in the structured invoice differently (e.g. using the heading “product name” instead of “item description”).

Given the possibility of such situations arising, the applicant asked the tax authorities to confirm that the PDF visualisations provided would not be regarded as blank invoices and that there would be no obligation to pay the VAT shown therein pursuant to Article 108(1) of the Polish VAT Act.

PDF visualisations as blank invoices

In the individual tax ruling, the Director of KIS stated that the differences described by the applicant between the structured invoice and the PDF visualisation could mislead the invoice recipient. In particular, the Director of KIS pointed out that:

• the FA(3) logical structure enables additional data to be presented in a structured form;
• if data is completed in the so-called “Rozliczenie” (Settlement) element within the XML file but is not reflected in the PDF visualisation, this may mislead the purchaser as to the final amount payable for the goods or services.

In the authority’s view, the proposed manner of presenting data included in the structured invoice also raises concerns (e.g. using the heading “product name” instead of “item description”).

Consequently, PDF visualisations generated in the manner described by the applicant would not constitute a faithful representation of the structured invoice and may therefore be regarded as a separate invoice within the meaning of Article 108 of the Polish VAT Act.

One step too far?

The Director of KIS’s approach is consistent with the position previously presented by the Ministry of Finance. According to the tax authorities, the structured invoice schema is sufficiently flexible to allow taxpayers to include all additional information within it.

It should be noted that the Director of KIS correctly stated that including additional amounts in the XML file within the “Rozliczenie” element, without reflecting them in the PDF visualisation, could mislead the invoice recipient. The authority correctly observed that the visualisation generated in the KSeF Taxpayer Application 2.0 would display different amounts from those shown in the PDF visualisation provided directly by the issuer.

At the same time, it should be remembered that invoice visualisations will contain a QR code enabling the recipient to verify the document and confirm that it is not a separate invoice, but merely a visualisation of a structured invoice. In such circumstances, the risk of misleading the recipient as to the number of invoices issued appears limited, while the risk of errors relating to invoice data also seems relatively low.

However, the authority’s doubts regarding the manner of presenting data (e.g. the use of “product name” instead of “item description”) should be assessed critically. Adopting such a restrictive approach would effectively require taxpayers to use the technical labels of individual structured invoice fields in invoice visualisations. For example, in an extreme case, numbering invoice lines would require headings such as “NrWierszaFa” or “Sequential Invoice Line Number”, while the common abbreviation “No.” would be deemed unacceptable. Given that the purpose of invoice visualisations is to transform difficult-to-read XML files into user-friendly documents for end recipients, such an approach would appear excessively formalistic.

It is also worth noting that the restrictive approach adopted by the tax authorities could potentially result in the visualisations generated within the official KSeF Taxpayer Application itself being regarded as blank invoices. New functionalities are gradually being added to the application, some of which result in information being included in the PDF visualisation that is not reflected in the XML file. For example, where a corrective invoice issued through KSeF contains at least one invoice line (“FaWiersz” node), the PDF visualisation generated in the KSeF Taxpayer Application includes the statement: “The discount does not apply to all supplies of goods and services provided to this purchaser during the relevant period.” Conversely, if the corrective invoice contains no invoice lines, the PDF visualisation automatically includes the statement: “The discount applies to all supplies of goods and services provided to this purchaser during the relevant period.”

Accordingly, under a strict interpretation by the tax authorities, including such information in the visualisation – despite it not being reflected in the XML file in any way – could potentially be treated as evidence of issuing a blank invoice.

What are the consequences of issuing a blank invoice?

The next few months should provide greater clarity on how strictly the tax authorities intend to approach visualisations of structured invoices. Nevertheless, it is already important to understand the implications of applying Article 108 of the Polish VAT Act.

If a tax authority were to regard a PDF visualisation as a blank invoice, the taxpayer would be obliged to pay the VAT amount shown on that document. Interest on tax arrears may also be charged, and liability under the Fiscal Penal Code may arise.

How can the issuance of blank invoices be avoided?

It should be noted that the postponement until 2027 of penalties related to the implementation of KSeF applies solely to the categories of acts listed in Article 106ni(1) of the Polish VAT Act. However, in other areas – including the issuance of blank invoices – negative consequences may already arise in 2026.

Accordingly, it is essential to verify the consistency between the information presented in the structured invoice and its visualisation. As part of KSeF audits conducted by MDDP, we verify the correctness of generated XML files. We also pay particular attention to invoice visualisations, taking into account the risk of double invoicing.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.