Andorra Invoice Requirements: IGI Compliance Guide

Andorra invoice requirements start with one rule many English summaries gloss over: a simplified invoice is generally the default document, but a full invoice becomes mandatory in specific cases. If the customer is an entrepreneur or professional, asks for a full invoice, or the supply falls into one of the scenarios the regulation carves out for fuller documentation, you should move to the full-invoice standard instead of relying on a receipt-style document.

That hierarchy matters because it changes what finance teams need to check. A full invoice must identify the relevant parties and show the taxable base, the applicable IGI rate, the IGI amount, and the total. A simplified invoice can use a lighter field set and can show the applicable rate or the wording "IGI inclos" instead of the same level of detail. Under Andorra's official invoicing regulation, a full invoice is required whenever the recipient is an entrepreneur or professional, and Andorran-established issuers must invoice in Catalan. That combination makes Andorra tax invoice requirements more specific than the generic small-sale VAT patterns many readers expect.

There are also local modifiers that can invalidate an otherwise tidy document. If an invoice is issued in a foreign currency, the IGI element still has to be expressed in euros using the customs exchange rate. If the invoice is electronic, it is valid only when the recipient accepts that format and the issuer can preserve authenticity of origin, integrity of content, and readability over time.

The practical workflow is straightforward:

• First, decide whether the document can remain a simplified invoice or needs to be upgraded to a full invoice.
• Second, check the field set that follows from that choice.
• Third, review special cases such as corrections, summary billing, language, currency, and electronic delivery.

Read the rest of the guide in that order and Andorra invoice requirements become much easier to apply in day-to-day issuing and AP review.

---

What a Full Andorran Invoice Must Show

When a full invoice is required, the safest approach is to treat it as a field-level compliance document, not just proof that a sale happened. For AP reviewers and bookkeepers, the question is not "Does this look like an invoice?" but "Does this contain the information needed to support IGI treatment and identify both sides of the transaction?"

If you are asking what must be on an invoice in Andorra, start with the checklist below.

A workable full-invoice checklist should cover:

• A unique, sequential invoice number
• The invoice issue date
• Clear identification of the supplier
• The supplier's tax identifier, including the NRT where applicable
• Identification of the customer when the transaction calls for a full invoice
• A description of the goods or services supplied
• The taxable base
• The applicable IGI rate
• The IGI amount
• The total amount payable

Those elements matter for different reasons. Party identification supports audit traceability. The description and dates help finance teams tie the document back to the underlying supply. The taxable base, IGI rate, and IGI amount are what let an accountant test whether the tax treatment is internally coherent rather than just accepting the total at face value.

This is also where Andorra invoice mandatory fields affect workflow design. If you are validating invoices manually, these become checklist items. If you are setting rules for downstream coding, they become the minimum data points that must be captured before posting. Missing or unclear fields should trigger a hold, especially where the customer is a business and the document is being used to support tax records.

One more operational point: validity is not only about what appears on the page. The same Andorran framework also sets invoice-issuance timing rules, so a finance team should review late-issued documents with the same care it gives missing tax fields. A document can be detailed yet still create compliance problems if it arrives outside the required invoicing window.

---

When a Simplified Invoice or Ticket Is Enough

The easiest way to misread Andorra full invoice vs simplified invoice rules is to assume simplified documents are a narrow exception. In practice, the opposite is closer to the truth: the simplified invoice is the starting point, and the full invoice is required when the law or the customer relationship demands more detail.

That matters because a simplified invoice is still a regulated document. It is not just any till receipt. It should retain the core information needed to identify the transaction and state the tax treatment, but it can do so with a lighter field set than a full invoice. In particular, the document can refer to the applicable rate or use the wording "IGI inclos" rather than setting out the same full set of tax fields expected on a business-facing invoice.

For operators, the decision path is practical:

• Keep the document in simplified form only when the transaction genuinely fits that regime.
• Move to a full invoice if the customer is an entrepreneur or professional.
• Move to a full invoice if the customer asks for one.
• Do not rely on a ticket-style document where the transaction falls into one of the scenarios the Andorran rules treat as requiring fuller documentation.

That last point is where control failures often start. A document may look adequate at payment stage because it shows an amount paid, yet still be the wrong invoice type for the customer and use case. If your team receives a simplified ticket for a business purchase, the right response is often to ask for a replacement full invoice before posting it.

If you want a useful comparison with a more familiar European pattern, our guide to Luxembourg's full-versus-simplified invoice checklist shows how another jurisdiction handles the same decision in a different legal structure. The comparison helps highlight why Andorra IGI invoice requirements should be read on their own terms instead of being forced into a generic VAT template.

---

Rectificative and Recapitulative Invoices

Andorra rectificative invoice rules matter whenever the original invoice is wrong or the taxable base changes after issue. That can happen because of pricing errors, returns, discounts granted later, cancelled supplies, or a tax treatment that needs to be corrected. The key control principle is traceability: the correction should not float free from the original document.

A sound rectificative invoice should make it easy to answer three questions:

• Which original invoice is being corrected?
• What changed?
• How does the correction affect the taxable base and the IGI amount?

If those answers are not clear, the accounting trail weakens quickly. AP teams may post the correction twice, miss it entirely, or fail to reconcile it against the original liability. For that reason, a rectificative invoice should clearly reference the original invoice and show the nature of the adjustment in a way a reviewer can follow without reconstructing the transaction from email chains.

An Andorra recapitulative invoice serves a different purpose. Instead of correcting a past error, it groups multiple transactions with the same customer into one summary invoice for a defined period. Used properly, that can reduce administrative load and still preserve a clear record of what was supplied and when. Used badly, it creates ambiguity about which deliveries or services are actually being billed.

The practical distinction is simple:

• A rectificative invoice fixes something that already happened.
• A recapitulative invoice consolidates multiple transactions that can legitimately be billed together.

Teams should never treat those as interchangeable. If the real issue is an error in the original invoice, issuing a summary document does not solve the audit problem. If the goal is periodic billing, a recapitulative invoice can work, but only if the covered period and underlying transactions remain clear enough for review, reconciliation, and record retention.

---

Language, Currency, and Electronic Invoice Validity

Some of the most Andorra-specific invoice rules sit outside the usual "mandatory fields" checklist. They shape whether the document is acceptable in practice even when the tax amounts and totals look correct.

Start with language. For Andorran-established issuers, the invoice has to be issued in Catalan. That makes Andorra invoice language requirements more than a drafting preference, especially after the wider legal focus on Catalan under Llei 6/2024 de la llengua propia i oficial. If your team receives invoices from a locally established issuer in another language, that should trigger a compliance review rather than a shrug.

Currency is the next trap. A business can invoice in a foreign currency, but the IGI amount still needs to be expressed in euros using the customs exchange rate. This is the kind of detail that gets dropped when invoices are re-keyed or reformatted, and it is exactly the sort of omission that should be built into review controls.

Andorra electronic invoice validity also needs to be read carefully. An electronic invoice is valid when the recipient consents to electronic invoicing and the issuer can guarantee authenticity of origin, integrity of content, and readability. A qualified electronic signature can support that outcome in some workflows, but the legal test is broader than "was a signature applied?" The real question is whether the invoice can be shown to be genuine, unchanged, and readable throughout its retention life.

Public-sector e-invoicing sits adjacent to these general rules. The supplier mandate for Andorran public entities has been pushed back, with the current rollout running through January 1, 2027, via the Portal de factures electroniques and the Registre de factures electroniques del sector public. That matters if you supply the public sector, but it should not distract from the broader validity tests that already apply to ordinary commercial invoicing.

For another example of how local language rules can affect invoice acceptance, see our guide to Belgium's invoice language compliance rules.

---

AP Validation Checks and Record-Keeping Priorities

If you need a practical close to this guide, turn the legal rules into a repeatable AP checklist. Before an Andorran invoice is posted or paid, the reviewer should confirm that the document type is correct and that the field set matches that document type.

A useful review sequence looks like this:

• Confirm whether the document should be a full invoice or a simplified invoice.
• Check that the supplier is clearly identified and that the tax identifiers needed for the transaction are present.
• Confirm the taxable base, IGI rate, IGI amount, and total are internally coherent.
• If the invoice is in a foreign currency, confirm IGI is also shown in euros using the appropriate customs exchange rate.
• If the invoice is rectificative, confirm it clearly references the original invoice and the reason for the adjustment.
• If the invoice is electronic, confirm your records preserve authenticity, integrity, and readability.
• If the issuer is established in Andorra, confirm the language requirement has been respected.

This kind of review catches the failures most likely to cause trouble later: a simplified ticket used where a full invoice was required, a correction posted without a clear reference chain, or a foreign-currency document that omits the euro-denominated IGI disclosure. Those are not cosmetic defects. They affect whether the invoice can be relied on for bookkeeping and compliance.

Record-keeping deserves its own check as well. The Andorran invoicing framework includes retention obligations, so finance teams should store the invoice, any related corrections, and the evidence supporting electronic authenticity in a way that remains accessible for the full legal retention period. A compliant invoice is not just properly issued on day one; it must also remain reviewable later.

If your team also works with neighboring special-regime jurisdictions, our guide to Canary Islands IGIC invoice rules is a useful companion because it shows how another non-standard indirect-tax system creates its own document-validation checks.