5 Things Legal Ops and Lawyers Need to Know About Billing Global
As companies expand their global footprints, they are running into uncharted territory for legal and e-billing policies. But these five steps can help avoid disaster.
March 26, 2019 at 11:55 AM
5 minute read
For nearly 20 years, the world's leading companies have used sophisticated electronic billing, matter and vendor management systems to govern large budgets and legal spend initiatives—but in a largely U.S.-centric way. As companies expand their global footprints, they are running into uncharted territory for legal and e-billing policies. It often comes as a surprise to corporate lawyers to discover just how out-of-compliance they are, but the fact is, they are just one revenue audit away from disaster.
The global e-billing process—that of creating, submitting, auditing, correcting and approving invoices for local or cross-border transactions in countries and regions around the world—is subject to stringent reporting requirements, and requires a mastery of intricate and varied jurisdictional rules, policies and laws that confound the very definition of an “invoice.” It is essential that legal ops teams not rely solely on their e-billing vendor who may not understand the inherent risks involved in the complicated web of compliance issues around the globe.
One of the first challenges to U.S.-based businesses is the complex regulatory environment inherent to international invoicing. The most complicated aspects of international electronic invoicing are the regulations controlling the Value Added Tax (VAT). Here are the five things that law departments, general counsels and legal operations technologists need to know about VAT compliance and recovery:
1. Meeting VAT Standards: Corporate law departments must meet the standards set forth in the European Commission's Directive on the Common System of Value Added Tax, and subsequent amendments. Local jurisdiction and VAT liability is determined by “place of supply” rules, which means that local rules apply in the country in which services were provided. For example, if a U.S.-based company sells services in France, the company has to comply with French local VAT rules. Why is this important to legal departments? Law firms have particular reporting requirements related to the place, type and value of services provided to their clients.
2. Core VAT Compliance Requirements: Authenticity, integrity and legibility are the three core VAT requirements that are mandated in Europe. These requirements establish a basic framework, and serve as excellent 'best practices' to follow elsewhere to meet the goal of ensuring a compliant legal e-billing system:
- Authenticity relates to assuring the accurate and traceable identification of the parties, and all transaction information required to audit VAT compliance.
- Integrity of content drives how law departments design the mode of transmission and the archival storage of the electronic invoice data.
- Legibility relates to the ability to render an electronic invoice that is comprehensible.
3. Time Management: Given the complex and demanding nature of compliance requirements, on average, it takes longer to comply with VAT taxes than corporate income taxes. Estimates show that while it takes approximately 74 hours to prepare corporate taxes, it can take up to 125 hours to comply with VAT requirements.
4. VAT Recovery Rules: International legal fees and expenses are taxed at an average of 20 percent of VAT, but did you know these taxes can often be reclaimed? The process of reclaiming VAT requires stringent and defensible controls. Keep in mind that VAT is charged in more than 160 Countries. U.S. organizations can generally recover these taxes from 18 countries, but surprisingly, 58 percent of what is paid is never reclaimed. In fact, an estimated $23 billion goes unclaimed in corporate VAT each year. This is just the tip of the “unclaimed iceberg,” in that this number accounts solely for expenses and not the fees that are commonplace to legal e-billing.
5. Preparing for VAT Recovery: Reclaiming VAT requires invoice compliance and data integrity. Direct filing and submission protocols may have been devised by Revenue Services to be complex because they don't want to refund VAT. Recovery periods generally follow annual fiscal periods, though numerous exceptions and alternate paths can exist.
|Overcoming the Global Challenges of Electronic Invoicing
In order for businesses to design, configure and deploy an integrated global electronic invoicing system, they must first identify and define financial, tax and other business and compliance requirements for all jurisdictions in which their law department operates. An effective program must be properly and comprehensively informed by, and compliant with, the various international laws and regulations that impact all facets of the process, including:
- Country-by-country invoice requirements (required data elements, proof of origination, data privacy, storage and archiving, etc.);
- Tax and compliance regulations;
- Business process for intake, processing and payment of legal spend;
- Business processes for vendor master records; and
- Business processes for finance.
The technology for global e-billing hinges on the design, specifications and build of legal payments processing interfaces. Specifically, the data interfaces between e-billing and a company's AP systems must be configured and deployed in accordance with financial and compliance requirements. This involves:
- End-to-end data lifecycle design, including interface data requirements and validations;
- Oversight and coordination of tax codes and tax code definition logic for each country;
- Development of defensible processes for the coordination of data security, data residency, data integrity and original invoice compliance requirements;
- Coordination of corporate entity, cost center, and matter information in the e-billing system; and
- Accounts payable interfaces and the flow of financial and tax information.
Success in the global business arena is complicated. The risks of non-compliance in global invoices may be great, but the rewards of global e-billing are greater.
As President and CEO of Hyperion Global Partners, Eyal Iffergan leads the premier global consultancy for legal business strategy and operations. With over 20 years of leadership in advising the legal and intellectual property business communities, Iffergan brings broad-based legal process and technology experience to managing influential global practices and companies, including founding and building several market-revolutionizing enterprises.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Simpson Thacher Replenishes London Ranks With Latest Linklaters Defection
- 2Holland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
- 3Squire Patton Boggs Associate Among Those Killed in String of Methanol Poisonings
- 4Womans Suit Alleging Negligence to Sex Trafficking by Hotel Tossed by Federal Judge
- 5More Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250