These are the questions tax administrations, architects and policymakers ask most often about real-time taxation and the VAT split-payment pilot. The answers stay inside what has been built and tested with the Netherlands Tax Administration, and each points to the deeper page where the topic is worked out in full.
In the pilot, VAT splits off to the tax authority at the moment of payment, the rest goes to the business. No separate filing, because the proof sits inside the transaction itself. Payment, tax remittance and the audit record become one atomic event, settled on pre-agreed rules and validated identities. It changes the execution logic, not the tax system: no new rates and no new law.
More: Split payment
Four building blocks. Event streaming moves from periodic filing to real-time verification. Digital identity confirms who is transacting without sharing the underlying dossier. Cryptographic proof is a record that proves itself. Privacy-preserving verification gives certainty without seeing everything. It can run on-premise or in European data centres, on open standards, so no single vendor or country holds it.
More: Architecture
It uses cryptographic techniques. It is not a coin and not a speculative system. What you get is a shared log, immutable and verifiable: proof that a transaction happened and that the right rules were applied. The value sits in cryptographically enforceable rules, identity and payments, not in the label “blockchain”.
More: Architecture
The tax authority sees what it needs for assessment and oversight, not the full commercial context of a deal. Verification is done on the proof, so counterparties, margins and volumes stay private. This is privacy-preserving verification: the system confirms that the right rules were applied without exposing the data behind them.
More: Selective disclosure
No. Only paid transactions enter the system, and the authority sees the proof of compliance, not the full record of what was bought or sold. Controlling without knowing everything is the design principle. Oversight is layered, over the rules, the working and the outcomes, the way IT supervision already works, rather than one central watcher reading every line.
More: Architecture
It is built for data minimisation. Because verification runs on proof rather than raw data, the personal data exposed is kept to what the law requires. Pilots run in the client's own environment, with key management held by the controller, so nothing has to flow to systems you do not control. Privacy is designed in, not added afterwards.
Under ViDA, Directive (EU) 2025/516, real-time digital reporting for intra-EU transactions applies from July 2030, with platform and registration measures from 2028. This approach meets that reporting obligation by producing the proof at the moment of the transaction, so you satisfy the mandate without building a central store of everyone's transaction data. You comply without creating a honeypot.
More: ViDA
Standard PKI keeps trust and its administration anchored in one central place. Here the keys stay at the edge, with each party, and the data stays at its source in your own environment. The separation is built into the architecture, not promised in a contract. That is the difference: with PKI the segregation is contractual; here it is structural.
More: Architecture
Yes. Verification relies on lightweight cryptographic hashing rather than energy-hungry computation, and it removes redundant reconciliation across separate systems. Fewer legacy dependencies and shorter processing paths mean a smaller operational footprint than the current landscape of separate invoices and periodic filings. It can run on-premise or in European data centres, within infrastructure you already operate.
More: Architecture
The applications move through defined stages: research and development, proof of concept, then pilot. The VAT application is at pilot stage, developed and tested with the Netherlands Tax Administration in an R&D setting, with market parties in the trials. Each stage has its own go or no-go decision, so the work can stop at any point and keep what it has already proven. We do not put a date on production; that decision stays with the tax administration.
More: Domains
It runs alongside your existing programmes and does not wait for a migration to finish first. Think of it as one tool in the toolbox, a complement rather than a replacement for what you already run. The work grows step by step, and every phase has its own go or no-go, so a stretched team can start small and stop at any boundary while keeping what it has gained.
More: Domains
Two reasons. Verifiable data processing is specialised technology; building it in-house costs significantly more time than using an approach that has already been through two development phases. And there is no lock-in: all data and proofs are exportable, so if you later want to run this capability yourself, you can. Portability is built into the architecture, not promised in a contract.
More: Architecture
Same policy goal, a narrower VAT gap, better oversight and lower burden, reached by a different route. ViDA centralises more transaction data for control after the fact; this puts the proof and certainty inside the transaction itself. It is a complement, not a replacement. In practice hybrid models are logical: ViDA for cross-border context and analysis, this approach for high-volume automated transactions where certainty up front matters most.
More: ViDA
The illegal volume is growing, and that is the argument for real-time verification of the legal operators, not against it. Making legal operators provably compliant draws a clear line: legal is verifiable, illegal is not. That sharpens the enforcement position against the illegal market, which is a separate, parallel track handled by enforcement agencies. It makes the legal side certain, so attention can go where it is missing.
More: Domains