Credit Seizures and E-Invoicing in Europe: What Spain and Italy Can Already Do with Your Invoice Data
Real-time e-invoicing does not only serve VAT control. In countries where the tax authority receives the data of every invoice at the moment of issuance, that information also becomes a tool for enforcement: it allows instant identification of who owes money to whom and enables action on those trade receivables before they are collected. This article explains what is happening across Europe, which countries already use invoicing data to accelerate credit seizures, which do not, and what real consequences this has for business owners.
What is a third-party credit seizure?
A third-party credit seizure is a mechanism whereby the tax authority, faced with an unpaid tax debt, orders the taxpayer's customer to pay directly to the treasury instead of to the taxpayer. The money never reaches the debtor: it goes straight from the customer to the tax authority.
In practice it works like this:
- A business has an outstanding tax debt (a payment notice, an enforcement order).
- The tax authority identifies that the business has issued invoices to a specific customer who has not yet paid.
- The tax authority notifies the customer with a seizure order, requiring them to withhold and pay the corresponding amount directly to the treasury.
- If the customer fails to comply, they may face their own penalties.
This mechanism is not new. What is new is the speed and precision with which tax authorities can execute it thanks to real-time e-invoicing data.
Italy: the Manovra 2026 and "smart seizures"
Italy was the first EU country to mandate B2B e-invoicing in 2019. Since then, the Agenzia delle Entrate has had complete access to all invoices issued and received by every taxpayer through the Sistema di Interscambio (SdI) — structured data, in real time, with full details of amounts, dates, issuer and recipient.
The Manovra 2026 (Italian Budget Law for 2026) went further: it expressly authorises the Agenzia delle Entrate-Riscossione to use e-invoice data from SdI to locate trade receivables and initiate faster, more targeted third-party seizures (pignoramenti presso terzi).
Until now, the main bottleneck was finding the right third party — the correct customer with an interceptable receivable. Of roughly 600,000 third-party seizures executed annually in Italy, only 22.5% succeeded, with an average collection of €10,500. With access to e-fatture data, the tax authority can analyse a taxpayer's last six months of invoicing and detect recurring customers, stable commercial relationships and predictable cash flows. The stated goal is to collect over €1 billion in additional annual revenue.
The consequences for Italian business owners are direct: if they have outstanding tax debts and issue invoices to customers, the Agenzia can block collection of those invoices before the money reaches their account. And the customer who receives the seizure notice finds themselves in a difficult position: they must decide whether to pay the tax authority or their supplier, with legal consequences either way.
Spain: the AEAT and VeriFactu as a visibility channel
In Spain, the third-party credit seizure mechanism is regulated under the General Tax Law (Art. 171) and the General Collection Regulation (RD 939/2005). The AEAT can directly notify seizure orders to a debtor's customer, requiring payment to the treasury.
With VeriFactu in submission mode, the AEAT receives invoicing records in real time. This means it can technically know the moment a taxpayer with outstanding debts issues an invoice to a customer, identify the commercial relationship and act on that receivable.
What about No-VeriFactu? In No-VeriFactu mode, the AEAT does not receive invoicing records in real time. It only gains visibility of a taxpayer's transactions when Form 347 is filed in February of the following fiscal year, or when records are formally requested during an inspection. This means the window for executing targeted seizures based on invoicing data is considerably narrower.
This difference is not accidental: it is one of the reasons why RD 1007/2023 expressly offers both modes. The taxpayer who chooses No-VeriFactu breaches no rule — they simply do not provide real-time access to their invoicing data.
Poland: technical capability, regulation pending
With KSeF operational since 2026, the Polish tax authority (KAS) has real-time access to all invoices issued and received by any taxpayer. The technical capability to identify trade receivables and execute seizures exists, just as in Italy.
However, unlike Italy, Poland has not explicitly regulated the use of KSeF data for enforcement purposes as directly. Polish fiscal enforcement laws allow third-party credit seizures, but the formal link to e-invoicing data has not been established with the same clarity as in the Italian Manovra.
That does not mean it cannot happen. The Italian precedent sets the path, and any country with a centralised clearance system has the infrastructure to do the same.
Belgium, Germany and the Nordic countries: no transactional access
In countries using exchange (Peppol) or post-audit models, the tax authority does not have real-time access to invoicing data on a transaction-by-transaction basis. Information arrives through periodic VAT declarations, annual lists or SAF-T files upon request.
This significantly limits the ability to execute targeted credit seizures based on recent invoicing data. Seizures still exist, but they rely on older, less granular information.
Summary table: credit seizures and e-invoicing by country
| Country | Real-time access to invoices | Seizures based on invoice data | Specific legal framework |
|---|---|---|---|
| Italy | Yes (SdI, since 2019) | Yes, formalised in Manovra 2026 | Art. 72-bis DPR 602/73 + SdI access |
| Spain | Yes (VeriFactu submission) / No (No-VeriFactu) | Yes, operational capability active | Art. 171 LGT + VeriFactu data |
| Poland | Yes (KSeF, since 2026) | Technical capability, not specifically regulated | Fiscal enforcement laws + KSeF |
| France | From Sep 2026 (PDP/PPF) | To be determined (system deploying) | Pending |
| Romania | Yes (RO e-Factura) | Probable (centralised clearance) | Romanian fiscal legislation |
| Belgium | Partial (Peppol decentralised) | Limited (no central clearance) | General procedures |
| Germany | No (post-audit → 2027) | No (no real-time data) | Judicial procedures |
| Nordics | Partial (Peppol B2G) | Limited | General procedures |
Real consequences for business owners
The cascade effect on customers
When the tax authority seizes a trade receivable, the person directly affected is not only the tax debtor — it is also their customer. The customer receives a notification ordering payment to the treasury instead of to their supplier. Ignoring it can lead to their own penalties. Paying it can create a conflict with their supplier. If the invoice is in dispute, the situation becomes exponentially complex.
Impact on cash flow and the payment chain
A credit seizure can freeze a business's cash flow immediately. If a business depends on monthly collections from a few large customers (common in construction, professional services, distribution), a single seizure can leave it without liquidity for payroll, suppliers or rent. With real-time e-invoicing, that seizure can arrive hours after issuing the invoice.
Commercial reputation and exposure of fiscal data
The customer who receives a seizure order does not merely learn that their supplier has tax debts — the seizure notice itself discloses the exact amount of the debt: the sum not paid during the voluntary period, the enforcement surcharge, interest and procedural costs. In other words, the AEAT shares detailed fiscal data about the debtor taxpayer with a third party (the customer), without the debtor's consent for that disclosure.
This amounts to a direct breach of the spirit of the LOPD and GDPR that the General Tax Law grants itself. Article 95 of the LGT establishes the confidential nature of tax data. Yet the seizure notice includes the exact amount of the taxpayer's debt — principal, enforcement surcharge, interest and costs — even though that information is not necessary to execute the seizure.
The seizure mechanism does not require it: the AEAT orders the customer to withhold all pending payments to the supplier and asks the customer how much they owe and when those payments are due. That is all it needs to execute the withholding. It does not need to tell the customer how much the supplier owes the treasury. Yet it does. The result is that the customer learns the detailed fiscal situation of their supplier — information they are not entitled to, did not request, and which data protection regulation would prohibit in any other context.
So why does the AEAT do it? The only operational explanation is pressure. A customer who knows their supplier owes a specific amount to the treasury changes their behaviour: they may tighten payment terms, demand additional guarantees, seek alternative suppliers, or simply lose trust. Disclosing the debt amount does not help execute the seizure; it helps create an environment of social and commercial pressure on the debtor. And the taxpayer can neither prevent it nor was consulted about it.
How long has this been happening? Third-party credit seizures are not a novelty of the digital age. The AEAT has been executing this mechanism since the General Tax Law of 2003 (Law 58/2003), which formalised the procedure in Articles 170 and 171, and the General Collection Regulation (RD 939/2005), which developed it in Article 81. But the precedents go further back: the former General Collection Regulation of 1990 (RD 1684/1990) already provided for third-party credit seizures as a collection tool. What changes with real-time e-invoicing is not the legal instrument but the ability to select the target: previously the AEAT needed to actively investigate the debtor's commercial relationships; now, with VeriFactu or Italy's SdI, that information arrives on its own.
What a business owner can do
Know your tax situation. Before choosing between VeriFactu and No-VeriFactu, check whether there are outstanding tax debts. If so, real-time visibility multiplies the risk of targeted seizures.
Consciously choose your software mode. If your invoicing software only allows VeriFactu, you have no option to limit the visibility you give the tax authority. Dual software (VeriFactu / No-VeriFactu) allows you to make that decision informed.
Keep instalment plans up to date. Spanish law provides that while a taxpayer is current on an instalment plan, the AEAT cannot initiate new enforcement actions — including credit seizures.
Involve your tax adviser. The choice between VeriFactu and No-VeriFactu is not just technical: it has direct implications for enforcement risk. Your tax adviser should participate in that decision.
Related reading: VeriFactu vs No-VeriFactu: Key Differences, 2027 Deadlines and Which to Choose
Related reading: E-Invoicing in Europe 2026-2030: How It Is Being Implemented Country by Country
InvoSeal offers dual mode (VeriFactu and No-VeriFactu) precisely so the business owner, together with their adviser, can decide the level of visibility they give to the tax authority. If you want to understand how this affects your business, check our documentation or get in touch.