- Who is this for?
- Finance leaders, billing teams and carrier executives operating under French invoicing rules
- Question addressed
- Understand transport self-billing in France and organize the checks that remain with the carrier.
Key takeaways
- A pre-invoice is a calculation state awaiting validation; a self-bill is an invoice issued by the customer in the carrier’s name and on its behalf.
- The mandate must exist before issuance and the parties must be able to demonstrate it; retaining written evidence is the safer practice.
- Accepting a self-bill does not remove the carrier’s need to check operations, amounts and required invoice information.
- A detected difference is not automatically an error, an admitted receivable or an accepted correction.
- The legal passages below describe French rules checked on 7 September 2026 and should be reviewed again if the law or the transaction changes.
Self-bill, pre-invoice and supplier-issued invoice are not the same document
In transport workflows, all three documents may show the same journeys and extras. Their visual similarity does not give them the same role. “Pre-invoice” generally describes a reconciliation statement or a proposed amount awaiting review; its exact status depends on its content and the agreed process. It should not automatically be treated as the final invoice.
A self-bill is materially prepared by the customer but issued in the carrier supplier’s name and on its behalf. A conventional invoice is issued by the carrier itself. The latter two must be checked as invoices, including their operations, numbering, amounts, VAT treatment and applicable particulars.
| Document | Who prepares it? | Workflow role | Carrier-side check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-invoice or preparatory statement | The customer, carrier or a reconciliation tool. | Propose operations and amounts before invoice issuance. | Validate scope, document differences and identify what remains provisional. |
| Self-bill | The customer, in the carrier’s name and on its behalf, under a mandate. | Serve as the carrier’s invoice for the covered operations. | Check the mandate, acceptance, particulars, operations, rates and applicable tax treatment. |
| Carrier-issued invoice | The carrier supplier. | Invoice the services directly to the customer. | Prevent duplication with the self-billed scope and retain the link from service to invoice. |
Agreement, acceptance and responsibilities must be visible in the workflow
Article 289 of the French General Tax Code allows a customer to materially issue invoices when the supplier has granted a mandate, subject to the supplier’s acceptance of each invoice. French tax guidance states that the mandate must precede issuance, that the parties must be able to demonstrate its existence and that written evidence is recommended. Express or tacit acceptance methods may be agreed by the parties.
The mandate does not transfer the carrier’s French tax responsibilities. The BOFiP guidance states that the supplier remains fully responsible for its invoicing obligations and their VAT consequences. The commercial agreement should therefore become a controllable workflow rule, not a document stored without any link to daily processing.
| Item to document | Control question | Useful evidence or data |
|---|---|---|
| Mandate scope | Which customers, legal entities, services and periods are covered? | Applicable agreement, version, effective date and identified parties. |
| Issuance in the correct name | Is the customer issuing in the name and on behalf of the right carrier entity? | Legal name, address, identifiers and establishment concerned. |
| Acceptance method | Who accepts, through which action and under which agreed timetable? | Status, author, timestamp and contractual deadline. |
| Dispute and correction | What process applies when information is incorrect or incomplete? | Reason, evidence, message, response and corrective document. |
| Retention and access | Does the carrier receive and retrieve every invoice issued in its name? | Received document, unique reference and link to the transport file. |
The operational control grid before acceptance
A useful control starts with what was performed and works back to the pricing rule instead of comparing only two totals. Every self-bill line should link to an identifiable operation and the facts supporting its amount. Regulatory invoice particulars sit alongside these business checks: Article 242 nonies A of Annex II to the French General Tax Code notably requires the word “Autofacturation” when the customer issues the invoice in the supplier’s name and on its behalf.
| Control block | Reconcile against | Difference to qualify | Expected decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity and references | Legal entities, identifiers, invoice number, order, journey or shipment. | Wrong entity, missing reference, duplicate or unmatched operation. | Link with evidence or suspend the line. |
| Performed operation | Origin, destination, dates, transport units, delivery status and available evidence. | Missing, cancelled, duplicated or different journey. | Confirm the performed and billable scope. |
| Base rate | Rate card, contract, accepted quote, zone, weight, volume, distance or agreed unit. | Wrong rate version, bracket or unit. | Apply the validated contractual rule or hand off for a decision. |
| Extras and deductions | Waiting time, tail lift, pallet exchange, change, surcharge or discount under the agreed rules. | Missing event, unsupported amount or unproven condition. | Attach the event and verify eligibility before correction. |
| VAT and particulars | Taxable amount, applicable rate or exemption, VAT amount, totals and “Autofacturation” wording. | Inconsistent calculation, missing particular or uncertain tax treatment. | Stop acceptance and obtain tax validation. |
| Correction | Initial invoice, credit note or corrective invoice, reason and new version. | Overwritten history or duplicate accounting. | Keep documents linked and retain the resolution status. |
Track an anomaly without turning every difference into a dispute
A difference may result from evidence received after calculation, an incorrectly selected pricing rule, an out-of-scope operation, tax treatment requiring confirmation or a genuine error. The first control outcome should therefore be a qualified difference linked to its sources, not an automatic correction.
The method and timeframe for raising an objection depend on the applicable agreement. The work queue should show the agreed deadline without presenting it as a universal statutory period. Resolution is complete only after the corrected document or final decision has been received, reviewed and linked back to the file.
| Status | Meaning | Exit condition |
|---|---|---|
| To reconcile | The line is not yet reliably linked to the correct transport. | Reference confirmed or documented handoff. |
| Difference detected | A difference exists, but its cause and validity are not established. | Qualification through rule, evidence and owner. |
| Awaiting decision | The evidence is assembled and a business or tax decision is required. | Acceptance, correction request or reasoned rejection. |
| Correction requested | The request has been sent through the agreed process. | Response and corrective document received. |
| Resolved | The final decision and its documentary effect have been verified. | Closure with evidence of the invoice, correction or decision not to correct. |
Automate reconciliation while keeping the decision controlled
A workflow can bring together the order, performed operation, evidence, pricing rule and self-bill, then present differences line by line. Cases covered by a validated rule can be prepared consistently; an ambiguous identity, missing evidence, uncertain tax treatment or conflicting rule should stop processing and return to the accountable person.
Vigilo is designed to connect these events, documents, rules, decisions and evidence within the scope configured with the company. Tax controls, access, responsibilities and actions must be validated for the relevant workflow. This article is neither personalized tax advice nor a claim that Vigilo makes a particular arrangement compliant.
- 01Link
Connect every line to the correct file and retain its source.
- 02Recalculate
Apply only the validated version of the pricing rules.
- 03Compare
Separate base amount, extras, deductions, tax and total.
- 04Qualify
Explain the difference without presuming its resolution.
- 05Decide
Route acceptance or correction to the defined owner.
- 06Verify
Read back the resulting document and status before closure.
Frequently asked questions
Direct answers
Is a pre-invoice the same as a self-bill?
Not necessarily. In a transport workflow, a pre-invoice often means a preparatory statement. Under French rules, a self-bill is an invoice issued by the customer in the carrier’s name and on its behalf under a mandate and subject to the carrier’s acceptance.
Does the shipper become responsible for VAT by issuing the self-bill?
No, not merely because it materially issues the document. French tax guidance states that the supplier remains responsible for its invoicing obligations and their VAT consequences.
Does Vigilo guarantee that self-bills comply with French tax rules?
No. Vigilo can be configured to assemble data, apply validated controls and route exceptions. The company and its qualified advisers must validate the arrangement, its rules and each relevant situation.
Sources and methodology
This resource describes Axonovia's product approach based on transport workflows. The examples are illustrative and do not constitute a performance commitment or a universally applicable contractual rule.
- Légifrance — French General Tax Code, Article 289French version consulted on 7 September 2026: issuance in the supplier’s name and on its behalf, mandate and acceptance of every invoice.
- Légifrance — Annex II to the French General Tax Code, Article 242 nonies AMandatory invoice particulars, including the “Autofacturation” wording at item 14.
- BOFiP — French tax guidance on invoice issuanceSection III-B-2, paragraphs 340–500: prior mandate, evidence of agreement, acceptance, responsibilities and consequences of the mandate.
Product review: Axonovia team · next review recommended before 31 August 2027 or following a material change in scope.