Consequences of a missing or faulty e-invoice
Choose whether an e-invoice was required, what you issued and whether the content is right: the calculator rates the risk to your customer’s input VAT and says whether to correct.
Risk to your customer’s input VAT
Low but avoidable
An ordinary invoice instead of the required e-invoice: in principle no input VAT, but with correct content usually still allowed (UStAE section 15.2a(1a) sentences 12 and 13). Better: send an e-invoice as correction.
| Counts as an e-invoice | No |
| Specific fine for a missing e-invoice | None in the VAT Act |
| Fine under section 26a UStG | Not applicable |
| Correction | Issue an e-invoice that corrects the old one |
Basis: section 26a(2) and (3) UStG; Finance Ministry letter of 15 October 2025, paras 6a, 6b and 35a, UStAE section 15.2a.
Prepared by Radif Partners · Method · VAT Act, ministry letters and XRechnung 3.0.2 checked on 25 October 2026
The German VAT Act contains no penalty specifically for a missing e-invoice. The fine in section 26a UStG covers failing to issue an invoice at all or on time, or failing to keep one; the fine can then reach €5,000. The real consequence of a wrong form usually falls on the customer: anyone who receives a PDF or paper invoice instead of the required e-invoice lacks, in principle, a proper invoice for deducting input VAT. The Finance Ministry letter of 15 October 2025 softens this where the content is correct, but the customer will still ask for a proper e-invoice. For faulty e-invoices the ministry distinguishes three cases. Format errors turn the file into an ordinary invoice. Business-rule breaches that concern a mandatory detail under section 14(4) UStG make the invoice defective. Breaches unrelated to the mandatory details, such as a missing buyer reference, do not matter for VAT. Corrections are made with a new e-invoice that refers to the old one.
Fines: what the law actually says
Many write-ups speak of a “penalty” for missing e-invoices. The law says something narrower. Section 26a(2) UStG lists as administrative offences, among others, failing to issue an invoice under section 14(2) at all or on time, and failing to keep an invoice for as long as section 14b UStG requires. Under subsection 3 this can be fined up to €5,000. An offence of “invoice in the wrong format” is not among them.
So anyone who writes no invoice at all or does not keep incoming invoices risks this fine. Whether a PDF that should have been an e-invoice counts as an invoice “not issued” has not been stated expressly, either by the law or by the administration. All that can be said responsibly is: it is an avoidable risk.
Input VAT: the risk lies with the customer
For the recipient, the invoice is the basis of the input VAT deduction. Without a proper invoice the deduction is, in principle, not allowed. The Finance Ministry letter of 15 October 2025 added to the VAT application decree on this point. Under section 15.2a(1a) sentences 12 and 13, the deduction generally remains possible with an ordinary invoice instead of the required e-invoice, as long as the other conditions and the content are right. That is an administrative concession, not a blank cheque: your customer will still ask for a correct e-invoice, and you owe it.
| What was issued | Counts as e-invoice | Effect for the customer |
|---|---|---|
| Correct e-invoice | Yes | No risk from the form |
| E-invoice, rule error without VAT relevance | Yes | Irrelevant, para. 35a |
| E-invoice, error in a mandatory detail | Yes | Not proper, correct it |
| XML with a format error | No | Ordinary invoice, para. 6a |
| PDF or paper despite the mandate | No | Deduction generally possible, send the e-invoice |
Format errors, rule errors, content errors
The ministry’s distinction follows the technical check. A format error exists if the file does not match the schema and therefore cannot be processed; it is then merely an invoice in another electronic format (para. 6a). A business-rule error exists if the file is readable but breaks a rule of the standard or of XRechnung (para. 6b). Whether that error matters depends on whether it concerns a mandatory detail under section 14(4) UStG, such as the VAT amount or the address.
Finally, a content error can hide in a formally flawless file, for instance a wrong VAT rate. Validation does not find it, and under paragraph 35a it does not replace checking the content either. The small calculator places the error your check reports into one of these classes:
For VAT purposes the file is
For VAT purposes the file is
Proper
| Paragraph in the ministry letter | Rn. 35a |
| Correct the invoice | No |
| Keep the validation report | Recommended |
Correct, do not overwrite
A faulty invoice is not overwritten but corrected. You issue a new document that clearly refers to the original invoice and send it as an e-invoice. The recipient keeps both files, because the first one must not be altered under the retention rules. In practice it is often simpler to cancel the old invoice with a credit note and write a new one with a new number.
Check your files before sending: the XRechnung validator shows each broken rule with its field and identifier, without uploading the file. For the complete check there is the KoSIT validator, which many invoice portals also use. The paragraphs themselves are set out on the Finance Ministry letter on e-invoicing.