Traced to the exact provision
Every conclusion cites the legal paragraph it rests on — as the law stood on the transaction date, not as it reads today.
Tax Solutions / VAT Validation
Every transaction,
not a sample
Substantive VAT validation of 100% of your indirect-tax transactions — reverse charge, chain transactions, place of supply — ruled against the law as it stood on the transaction date.
INV-2025-04417
IncorrectWhy this verdict
The supplier is established outside Germany and the recipient is a German taxable person, so liability shifts to the recipient under §13b Abs. 2 Nr. 1 and §13b Abs. 5 UStG. German VAT was charged on the invoice at the standard rate. Under reverse charge the recipient accounts for the tax and takes the input-VAT deduction under §15 Abs. 1 Nr. 4 UStG. The declared treatment is incorrect for this supply.
Taxable person & registration§2
Place of supply§3a Abs. 2
Reverse-charge test§13b Abs. 2, 5
Rate & exemption§12, §4
Invoice requirements§14, §14a
INV-2025-04418
CorrectWhy this verdict
A domestic supply of goods between two German taxable persons with no special scheme applying. The place of supply is Germany under §3 Abs. 6 UStG, the standard rate applies under §12 Abs. 1, and the invoice meets the requirements of §14 Abs. 4. Declared VAT of 19% matches the expected treatment.
Taxable person & registration§2
Place of supply§3 Abs. 6
Reverse-charge test§13b — n/a
Rate & exemption§12 Abs. 1
Invoice requirements§14 Abs. 4
INV-2025-04421
Requires reviewWhy this verdict
A chain transaction with three parties and intra-Community transport. Which supply the transport attaches to under §3 Abs. 6a UStG turns on who arranged the transport, and the delivery documents attribute it ambiguously. The engine will not decide this by inference — the case goes to a reviewer with the two possible treatments and their consequences already assembled.
Taxable person & registration§2
Chain transaction attribution§3 Abs. 6a
Intra-Community exemption§4 Nr. 1b, §6a
Rate & computation§12
verdict 1 of 3
entry 01the validation gap
Most of your transactions have never been validated.
Your company moves thousands of indirect-tax transactions a year — cross-border supplies, chain transactions, reverse-charge cases — across a dozen or more jurisdictions, each with its own rules. Every one of them is a liability if it is characterised wrong.
Your tax engine checks every transaction against the treatment it was configured with. Whether the characterisation itself is right is expert judgment, and there are never enough hours to examine everything.
So everyone samples. A few hundred transactions get substantive review, out of millions. The rest is never individually examined by anyone.
The risk is not managed. It is invisible — until a tax audit makes it visible.
1–5%
of transactions receive substantive review of the characterisation. Your tax engine touches 100%, but only applies the treatment it was told to apply.
40–150%
penalty exposure across a European footprint — France 40–80%, Spain 50–150%, Italy 70%, Poland up to 100% — each jurisdiction running its own audit clock.
§14c / §13b
the German cash-flow trap: on a wrong reverse-charge call the VAT is still owed while the input-VAT deduction is denied.
Look-back compounds it. German audits typically cover three years, with an assessment window up to ten — a recurring error is reassessed in every open year, in every country it ran.
entry 02how it works
The judgment work moves into the validation layer.
Deterministic, at scale, grounded in the law. The model reads the messy reality of your documents; it never decides the rule that applies to them.
Extract
Transaction data straight from your systems — ERP, invoices, contracts, delivery documents. Free text and structured fields both.
Ground in the law
A knowledge graph built from the legal text itself — versioned and effective-dated, validated by practising tax experts. The engine reads the subgraph that applied on the transaction date, not today's.
Reason deterministically
The model reasons over each case inside hard guardrails while a deterministic engine governs every step. The model never guesses a rule and never chooses the route.
Return a verdict
100% examined. Each transaction ruled Correct, Incorrect, Requires Review or Incomplete, with the reasoning attached. Your experts receive findings, not workload.
Every transaction gets a verdict — including the correct ones.
What the engine cannot verify against the law it marks Requires Review or Incomplete, with the reasoning attached. Nothing is waved through, and nothing is dumped on your team. The four-verdict system, in full →
entry 03defensibility
Every decision defensible — years later.
An audit does not arrive while the transaction is fresh. It arrives three years later and asks you to explain a call nobody remembers making.
Logged and reproducible
Every action is recorded, and every run repeats with identical results. There is no black box to explain away.
Explainable to the authority
Built to survive an audit: the reasoning can be shown, replayed and defended in front of a tax authority or an audit committee.
entry 04the clock
Sampling is about to stop being defensible.
Mandatory e-invoicing in Germany from 2027–28 and EU-wide digital reporting under ViDA from July 2030 make every invoice machine-readable — and every systematic error visible at both counterparties. The full regulatory timeline →
entry 05same engine, rest of the function
VAT is where firms start. It is not where the engine stops.
entry 06next step
Two hours. Your transactions. You leave with findings.
The working session: bring a sample of your real transactions and we run them live. No slideware — you leave with verdicts and the derivation behind each one.
Certified and assessed
ISO/IEC 27001TISAXEU AI Act — Art. 12 / 14 / 15
Sensitive data is tokenised inside your environment before any external model contact. Client data does not leave your compliance perimeter.