Electronic Invoice Rejection: Reasons, Statuses and What to Do in 2026

Introduction

Since the progressive implementation of mandatory electronic invoicing reform in France, the rejection of an electronic invoice has become a major operational and financial issue for companies subject to VAT. In 2026, with the expansion of the scope to mid-market enterprises and SMEs, the volume of invoices passing through Partner Dematerialisation Platforms (PDP) and the public PPF platform has exploded, along with the number of rejections. Understanding why an invoice is rejected, identifying the associated status in the lifecycle, and knowing what corrective actions to implement is now essential to preserve your cash flow and tax compliance. This article provides you with a comprehensive and practical overview.

---

The lifecycle of an electronic invoice and its key statuses

Electronic invoicing is based on a standardised lifecycle defined by the Directorate General of Public Finances (DGFiP). Each invoice passes through a succession of statuses that trace its processing, from issuance to settlement.

The official statuses recognised by French regulation

The lifecycle of an electronic B2B invoice includes the following statuses, all of which must be transmitted to the administration via the e-reporting flow or approved platforms:

• Submitted: the invoice has been submitted on the issuer's platform.

• In transit: the issuer's platform is routing the invoice to the recipient's platform.

• Made available: the recipient can view the invoice on their platform.

• Received: the recipient has acknowledged receipt of the invoice.

• Accepted: the recipient validates the invoice without reservation.

• Refused: the recipient formally refuses the invoice.

• Rejected: the invoice does not meet the expected technical or regulatory criteria.

• Disputed: the invoice is contested, without definitive refusal.

• Partially approved: the buyer accepts part of the invoice.

• Paid: payment has been made.

The distinction between refusal and rejection is fundamental. Rejection is a technical or regulatory decision, usually automatic, issued by the dematerialisation platform. Refusal is a commercial decision by the buyer, who contests the content or legitimacy of the invoice.

Traceability of statuses: a legal obligation

Since Ordinance No. 2021-1190 of 15 September 2021 and its implementing decrees, the transmission of lifecycle statuses to the DGFiP is mandatory. Approved PDP platforms must transmit changes of status in real time, particularly rejections, to ensure tax traceability. This obligation applies to both issuer and recipient. Failure to transmit a status can result in tax penalties.

---

The main reasons for electronic invoice rejection

Rejections can occur at different stages of the lifecycle and fall into distinct categories. Precisely identifying the cause of a rejection is the first step towards correcting it effectively.

Technical reasons related to format and structure

The regulatory formats accepted in France are defined by the Factur-X standard (Franco-German hybrid PDF/XML format) and the purely structured formats UBL 2.1 and CII (Cross Industry Invoice). To understand the specifics of each format, see our guide on Factur-X and its different profiles. The most common technical rejections are:

• XML not conforming to XSD schema: the file structure does not match the expected validation schema.

• Inappropriate Factur-X profile: use of the MINIMUM profile instead of EN 16931 or EXTENDED depending on the complexity of the invoice.

• Corrupted PDF or non-compliant PDF/A-3: the PDF file integrating the Factur-X XML must be archivable according to ISO 19005-3 standard.

• Invalid or missing electronic signature: some platforms require a qualified or advanced signature depending on the required security level.

• File size exceeding limits: each platform sets file size limits.

• Incorrect encoding: the XML file must be encoded in UTF-8.

Regulatory and tax reasons

Beyond format, an invoice can be rejected because it does not comply with the mandatory information defined by Article 289 of the General Tax Code (CGI) and supplemented by Decree No. 2022-1299 of 7 October 2022:

• Missing or invalid SIREN/SIRET number: the identifier of the issuer and recipient must correspond to an active company registered in the SIRENE directory.

• Incorrect intra-community VAT number: the format must comply with the national structure (FR + 2 alphanumeric characters + 9 SIREN digits).

• Inconsistent issue date: an invoice antedated or postdated beyond a certain period may be automatically rejected.

• Inconsistent amounts: discrepancy between net base, VAT rate applied and total amount including VAT.

• Missing NAF/APE code: some platforms verify the consistency of the activity code.

• Unrecognised currency: only certain currencies are accepted depending on platform configuration.

• Duplicate invoice number: any invoice bearing an identifier already processed is automatically rejected to avoid duplicate payments.

Reasons related to platform and routing

Some rejections are independent of invoice content but result from interoperability or configuration problems:

• Recipient not connected: if the buyer is not yet registered on an approved platform, the invoice cannot be routed.

• Central directory not updated: the Public Invoicing Portal (PPF) centralises the directory of companies and their routing platforms. If the recipient does not appear there with the correct routing coordinates, the invoice is rejected in transit.

• Issuer platform certificate expired: PDPs communicate via qualified SSL/TLS certificates whose expiration interrupts exchanges.

• Timeout or unavailability of receiving platform: during periods of heavy load, some messages may be lost and invoices rejected by default.

---

How to handle a rejection: step-by-step procedure

When faced with a rejection, responsiveness is key. The rejected invoice has no tax value until it is corrected and reissued. Here is the recommended procedure.

Analyse the error code and rejection reason

Each platform generates a structured rejection notice containing a standardised error code and explanatory message. It is essential to retain this document, as it constitutes evidence of good faith in the event of a tax audit. Error codes generally comply with PEPPOL specifications or national specifications published by the DGFiP in the technical specifications document for PDPs.

Analyse:

• The error code (e.g. BR-01 for missing issuer identifier, BR-CO-09 for VAT inconsistency).

• The level of rejection: syntactic validation (XSD schema), semantic validation (business rules), or routing rejection.

• The platform issuing the rejection: the issuing PDP, the receiving PDP or the PPF.

Correct the invoice and issue a corrected invoice

A rejected invoice must not be subject to a credit note followed by a new invoice, unlike an invoice refused by the recipient. The rejected invoice is deemed never to have been issued from a tax perspective. It is therefore sufficient to:

• Correct the incorrect data in your invoicing tool or ERP.

• Regenerate the file in the correct format (Factur-X, UBL or CII depending on your flow).

• Resubmit the corrected invoice with the same invoice number if the rejection is purely technical and the platform has not recorded a sequence, or a new invoice number if the sequence has been consumed.

• Verify status transmission via your PDP dashboard to confirm that the corrected invoice has been made available to the recipient.

To learn more about obligations to transmit data to the DGFiP, see our article on e-reporting and transmission of transaction data.

Preventive measures to reduce rejections

Rather than dealing with rejections on a case-by-case basis, companies benefit from implementing preventive measures:

• Validate invoices before issuance using a technical validation tool. Our free Factur-X validator allows you to detect format errors before submission.

• Keep your customer database up to date with SIREN, SIRET and verified VAT numbers via the SIRENE directory and the VIES service of the European Commission.

• Set up real-time alerts on your PDP to be notified immediately in the event of a rejection, without waiting for the daily batch processing.

• Train accounting teams on common error codes and the correction procedure, to reduce average processing time.

• Regularly audit your invoice templates to ensure they integrate all current mandatory information, particularly after each regulatory update.

---

Impact of rejections on cash flow and tax compliance

Direct financial consequences

A rejected invoice is an unpaid invoice. In a context where the LME law sets payment deadlines at 30 or 60 days depending on the sector, each day of delay attributable to an untreated rejection directly worsens the company's working capital requirement (WCR). According to the 2025 Altares Payment Barometer, B2B payment delays represent on average 14 additional days of delay for invoices that have suffered at least one technical rejection.

Furthermore, late payment penalties provided for in Article L.441-10 of the Commercial Code (ECB interest rate + 10 percentage points) can generate ancillary fees, non-recoverable even if the delay is attributable to a technical rejection on your part.

Risks in terms of tax audit

The DGFiP has access to the lifecycle statuses transmitted by PDPs. An invoice whose status remains in rejection without correction within a reasonable timeframe may raise questions during a tax audit, particularly regarding the reality of the transaction or the accuracy of VAT declarations. It is therefore essential to document each rejection, its cause, and the corrective actions taken, in an internal traceability register. Our guide on the electronic invoicing calendar 2026-2027 details the regulatory deadlines to meet to remain compliant.

Legal framework applicable to electronic invoice rejections

The handling of electronic invoice rejections falls within a dense legal framework, articulating national tax law, European law and technical standards.

Ordinance No. 2021-1190 of 15 September 2021: It is the founding text of the mandatory electronic invoicing obligation in France for domestic B2B transactions, and establishes the principle of the standardised lifecycle with obligation to transmit statuses to the DGFiP.

Decree No. 2022-1299 of 7 October 2022: It clarifies the methods of application, in particular the mandatory information for electronic invoices (including SIREN/SIRET identifiers) and accepted formats (Factur-X, UBL 2.1, CII). Non-compliance with these requirements constitutes a legal ground for rejection.

Article 289 of the General Tax Code (CGI): It defines the mandatory information that must appear on any invoice subject to VAT. The absence of any of this information (intra-community VAT number, transaction date, description of services, etc.) may justify rejection or refusal by the recipient, without the latter being engaged in contractual liability.

Directive 2014/55/EU on electronic invoicing in public procurement: Transposed into French law, it requires the use of the European EN 16931 standard for invoices addressed to public entities. The Factur-X EN 16931 and EXTENDED profiles comply with this standard. A lower profile (MINIMUM, BASIC WL) may result in automatic rejection by public buyers' financial management systems.

ETSI EN 319 132 standard: Related to advanced XAdES electronic signatures, it applies when an electronic signature is affixed to the XML invoice. A signature not conforming to this standard may cause rejection at the cryptographic verification level by the receiving PDP.

Regulation eIDAS No. 910/2014: Certificates used to sign invoices or authenticate exchanges between platforms must be issued by qualified trust service providers (QTSP) listed on the national trust list (TSL list). A non-qualified or revoked certificate results in routing rejection.

GDPR No. 2016/679: Personal data contained in invoices (contact name, address) is subject to the GDPR. PDPs and their subcontractors must process this data with adequate safeguards. Where rejection involves incorrect transmission of personal data, the responsibility of the controller may be engaged.

Applicable sanctions: Breaches of electronic invoicing obligations are subject to a tax fine of €15 per invoice, capped at €15,000 per calendar year, without prejudice to late payment interest in the event of VAT not declared within the prescribed period.

Use cases: how companies manage electronic invoice rejections

Scenario 1 — An industrial SME subcontractor handling 500 invoices per month

An industrial SME of about fifty employees, specialising in precision mechanics and a subcontractor to major contracting authorities, issues approximately 500 invoices per month via its PDP. When it moves to mandatory electronic invoicing in early 2026, it notices a rejection rate of 12% in the first few weeks, mainly due to outdated customer SIRETs in its ERP following restructuring of industrial groups.

It implements an automatic SIRET verification process before each issuance via the INSEE SIRENE API. In parallel, it sets up email alerts on its PDP to be notified within less than 2 hours in the event of rejection, without waiting for daily batch processing. Within 6 weeks, the rejection rate falls to less than 1%. The impact on cash flow is immediate: the average invoice availability delay drops from 4.2 days to 0.8 days, mechanically reducing the DSO (Days Sales Outstanding) by 3.4 days.

Scenario 2 — An independent consulting firm issuing invoices in incorrect Factur-X profile

A digital transformation consulting firm of about ten consultants sends invoices to large corporate public sector clients. Its invoices generated by an online accounting tool automatically use the MINIMUM profile of Factur-X, whereas public entities require the EN 16931 profile to comply with Directive 2014/55/EU.

After several automatic rejections by their clients' Chorus Pro systems, the firm identifies the problem through error codes BR-07 (insufficient profile) provided in the rejection notices. It contacts its accounting software publisher to force the EN 16931 profile in the export settings. The correction is deployed within one week. Result: zero rejections over the following 3 months and an average payment deadline reduced by 8 days due to streamlined processing on the buyer's side.

Scenario 3 — A multi-site distribution group with interoperability problems between PDPs

A distribution group of approximately 300 employees with several separate legal entities uses PDP A for its issuing entities and notes that its large retail customers mostly use PDP B. Recurring routing rejections (status "not routed") appear, linked to an interoperability problem between the two platforms on handling of acknowledgements of receipt.

The group asks its two PDPs for an interoperability audit. It emerges that PDP A certificates are expired for the AS4 protocol used by PDP B. After renewing certificates and conducting cross-platform interoperability tests, the routing rejection rate drops from 8% to 0.2%. The group estimates it avoided €45,000 in payment delays over the following quarter, based on avoided LME penalties and productivity gains in the accounts payable department.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between rejection and refusal of an electronic invoice?

Rejection is an automatic decision issued by a digitalisation platform when an invoice does not meet technical or regulatory criteria: invalid XML format, non-existent SIREN, inconsistent amounts. Refusal, on the other hand, is a commercial decision made by the buyer themselves, who contests the content or legitimacy of the invoice. These two statuses have different consequences and call for distinct corrective actions.

What mandatory information can trigger automatic rejection of an electronic invoice in France?

In accordance with Article 289 of the French General Tax Code, several pieces of data are checked automatically: the SIREN or SIRET number of the issuer and recipient, the intra-community VAT number in the prescribed format, the consistency between the amount excluding tax, the VAT rate and the amount including all taxes, as well as the uniqueness of the invoice number. The absence or inaccuracy of any one of these pieces of information is sufficient to trigger a rejection.

Can rejection of an electronic invoice result in tax penalties?

Yes. The transmission of lifecycle statuses, including rejections, has been mandatory to the DGFiP since Ordinance No. 2021-1190 of 15 September 2021. If a rejected invoice is not corrected and reissued within the prescribed timeframes, the issuing company faces the risk of non-compliant invoicing, which may result in VAT adjustments and tax penalties, regardless of whether the delivery or service actually took place.

What file formats are accepted for B2B electronic invoicing in France in 2026?

French regulations recognise three formats: Factur-X, a hybrid format combining a readable PDF and a structured XML file compliant with the EN 16931 standard; UBL 2.1; and CII (Cross Industry Invoice). Each format comprises profiles of increasing complexity. The use of a profile that is insufficient for the data to be transmitted is one of the most common technical rejection reasons reported by partner digitalisation platforms.

What should you do concretely when an electronic invoice is rejected by the platform?

You must first consult the error message associated with the "Rejected" status on the platform in question in order to identify the precise cause. Depending on the reason, you should correct the erroneous or missing data, regenerate the file in the correct format and submit a new invoice bearing a different number, as the original number remains associated with the rejection in the audit trails. The rejected invoice should not simply be resent as it is.

Conclusion

The rejection of an electronic invoice is not inevitable, but it requires responsiveness and precise understanding of the reasons to be handled effectively. Whether it is a format error, an invalid SIRET, a routing problem between platforms or a missing mandatory piece of information, each type of rejection has a clear corrective procedure. In 2026, as the obligation extends to all companies subject to VAT, investing in rejection prevention is a direct lever for improving WCR and tax compliance.

Certyneo supports you in your transition to electronic invoicing with tools suited to your volume and sector. Discover how our solution can reduce your rejection rate from the first weeks: start your electronic invoice diagnosis or contact our team for personalised support.