Internal business case · for the buying committee

Making the case
for Beleggo

Why we should adopt a provably-local e-invoicing engine — and what it costs us not to.

Beleggo · prepared for internal review · confidential

Read this in one minute

THE SITUATION

The obligation is law

Structured e-invoicing is mandated on fixed dates. Non-compliant invoices get rejected — delayed cash and manual rework, on every affected invoice.

THE GAP

Our tooling is exposed

We either upload confidential invoice data to a third party, or we have no systematic pre-send check at all.

THE FIX

Closed with no new risk

Beleggo validates, fixes and generates compliant invoices on our own machines — no data leaves the building, no per-seat cloud, no lock-in.

THE ASK

A pilot, not a rollout

Try it in the browser on real invoices first, then decide. No procurement-grade data-processing review needed, because there is no processor.

01

The problem, in our terms

Every rejected invoice costs us twice. Every uploaded one is an exposure.

Two costs we already carry — quietly, on every affected invoice.

What it's costing us today

REJECTIONS

Cost twice

A malformed XRechnung/ZUGFeRD bounces from the buyer's or authority's system. Days later someone re-keys it, re-sends, chases payment. Multiply by monthly volume.

STALE RULES

Silent failure

The rules change on legally-mandated dates several times a year. Whatever we use must stay current, or it quietly passes invoices that will be rejected.

DATA PROTECTION

Blocks the easy fix

The convenient online validators upload the invoice — customer names, bank details, revenue. A DSGVO and §203 StGB exposure.

48% of German firms name data-protection requirements among the biggest obstacles to using AI — ahead of result quality4. Which is exactly why the obvious tools go unused.

Sources: 4 bitkom.org/Presse/Presseinformation/Durchbruch-Kuenstliche-Intelligenz

Beleggo's core guarantee

0 bytes

leave the device. Validate, fix and generate every invoice locally — verifiable in DevTools, or with the network cable pulled.

No upload means no data-processing agreement to negotiate, no sub-processor to vet, no cross-border transfer question.

What we'd actually get

PRE-SEND CHECK

5-layer validation

Catches rule violations before the invoice goes out: 1,818 checks per invoice, each mapped to the exact field with an explanation5. No more "why did it bounce?"

REPAIR

One-click fix

Safe structural repairs + a guided editor for the rest. Invalid → valid without a developer.

GENERATE

Compliant output

XRechnung, ZUGFeRD/Factur-X, Peppol — validated before download, with our logo/QR (Pro).

DESKTOP

Batch & watch folders

Point it at a folder → one CSV report. Watch an inbox → auto-check every new file.

Sources: 5 beleggo.de/#conformance

"Can we trust its verdict?" — yes, and it's checkable

Beleggo's accept/reject verdict is cross-checked against the official reference validators — the same rule base the authorities use:

  • KoSIT validator jar · the engine behind the government routers
  • Service-BW state endpoint
  • EU Commission ITB
  • VeraPDF · the PDF/A container
1,8185
checks per invoice · 1,783 from the official Schematron
7225
samples checked against the official validators · 0 open disagreements, documented

Sources: 5 beleggo.de/#conformance

How it fits the way we work

Our situation How Beleggo covers it
Finance/AP checks invoices manually Web studio or desktop — drag, drop, verdict in seconds
We run an ERP / invoicing system OEM engine embeds inside it — validate without uploading
Devs maintain the pipeline CLI in CI (beleggo validate, exit codes) + npm packages
We use AI to process invoices Local MCP server: the AI drafts, Beleggo proves it before the ledger
Multiple entities / countries One engine, 8 formats — no separate tool per market

What it takes from us — and what it doesn't

What we actually do

  • Try the web edition on real invoices — today, no procurement
  • For batch work, the desktop app on the affected seats
  • Keep the ruleset current — that is the recurring part
  • Decide once who checks, and where in the flow

No hidden line items

  • No per-invoice fee
  • No per-seat cloud subscription
  • No mandatory implementation project
  • No data-processing agreement to negotiate, no sub-processor to vet
  • Works offline — no uptime dependency

Terms follow the shape (seats, a practice-wide multi-seat licence, embedding it in our own product) and are discussed rather than picked from a cart: [email protected]. The yardstick isn't the licence line anyway — it's the rework on a single rejected invoice run.

The cost of doing nothing

EVERY REJECTION

Delayed cash

Manual rework + a customer-facing "your invoice bounced" conversation.

EVERY UPLOAD

An exposure

A data-protection risk we can't fully account for.

EVERY MISSED RULE

Silent failure

Invoices that pass our old check and still get rejected downstream.

And the mandate dates don't wait — the 2027 (prior-year turnover above €800k) and 2028 (everyone) issuing waves land whether or not we're ready1. Beleggo removes all of this without us standing up an implementation project.

Sources: 1 bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/FAQ/e-rechnung.html

Rollout — low-risk, staged

WEEK 1

Prove it, free

Use the free web studio on real invoices. Verify the no-upload claim ourselves (DevTools / offline). Confirm verdicts match what we know bounces.

WEEK 2

Pilot Pro

One or two users on Pro / desktop. Run a batch of last month's invoices. Measure the catch rate.

WEEK 3–4

Decide the tier

Team seats vs. embedding in our system vs. CLI-in-CI, based on where the pilot found value.

Ongoing: keep the rule-update subscription current — that's the whole point; the legislator provides the upgrade cycle.

Recommendation

Approve a Beleggo pilot.

No procurement to start, ours to run, and it removes a compliance risk we already carry. Proven against the official validators, and nothing we handle leaves our machines.

Beleggo · beleggo.de · [email protected]

Sources

Every figure carries a number and the address at the foot of its own slide, so the committee can look it up. Retrieved September 2026.

1German Federal Ministry of Finance, FAQ "Elektronische Rechnung" — receive obligation since 2025-01-01; issue obligation from 2027-01-01 above €800,000 prior-year turnover, from 2028-01-01 for all.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/FAQ/e-rechnung.html
2DGFiP / impots.gouv.fr — receive obligation for all from 2026-09-01; issue obligation for large and mid-size firms from 2026-09-01, for SMEs from 2027-09-01.impots.gouv.fr/facturation-electronique-entre-entreprises-tout-savoir-sur-la-reforme
3Council Directive (EU) 2025/516 (ViDA), OJ 2025-03-25 — EN 16931 e-invoicing for intra-EU B2B from 2030-07-01.eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2025/516/oj/eng
4Bitkom, "Künstliche Intelligenz in Deutschland", press conference 2025-09-15 — n = 604 German firms with 20+ employees: 48 % name data-protection requirements among the biggest obstacles, 53 % legal uncertainty.bitkom.org/Presse/Presseinformation/Durchbruch-Kuenstliche-Intelligenz
5Engine figures — checks per invoice, rule count, samples, disagreements and pinned ruleset versions. Public, and generated from the repository (scripts/build-conformance.mjs).beleggo.de/#conformance
6Art. 28 GDPR, § 203 StGB, § 30 AO — statutory texts.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__203.html · gesetze-im-internet.de/ao_1977/__30.html