The "need for new ideas" is a constant theme in the speeches of President Kaïs Saïed. But this rhetoric has never gone beyond mere incantation. Neither the reforms announced nor the projects for creation or construction have gone beyond the level of slogans. The finance bill once again highlighted the amateurism with which public affairs are managed in Carthage, in a system where all power is concentrated in the hands of the President of the Republic.
A text intended to continue the modernization and optimization of the tax system, through the extension of electronic invoicing, has been introduced in the form of a single-paragraph article, the vague wording of which is likely to cause chaos for the legal entities and individuals concerned. The attitude of the authorities risks being even more disastrous, given the heavy tax and criminal repercussions weighing on a large part of the Tunisian economy, with negative effects at both the microeconomic and macroeconomic levels in the long term.
Electronic invoicing before the 2026 Finance Act
Prior to the adoption of the 2026 Finance Act, electronic invoicing was governed by the Value Added Tax (VAT) Code, in particular by Article 18, paragraph II ter, subparagraph 4. This established electronic invoicing as an option, while specifying:
"Electronic invoicing must be used by companies falling under the jurisdiction of the Large Enterprises Directorate for transactions carried out with the State, local authorities, public institutions, and public companies."
The text also added that:
"The issuance of electronic invoices is also mandatory for sales of medicines and hydrocarbons between professionals, with the exception of retailers."
Thus, prior to the 2026 Finance Act, electronic invoicing was only mandatory for specific and very limited categories of taxpayers.
However, this did not prevent the legislator from penalizing the failure to issue electronic invoices when this obligation existed. Indeed, Article 94 of the Code of Tax Rights and Procedures, as amended by the 2025 Finance Act, provides:
"Any person who issues paper invoices for transactions that are subject to mandatory electronic invoicing [...] shall be punished by a fine of between 100 and 500 dinars for each invoice, without the total amount of the fine exceeding 50,000 dinars."
The 2026 Finance Act – Article 53
Article 53 of the 2026 Finance Act provides for the addition of the phrase "the provision of services" after the phrase "the issuance of electronic invoices is also mandatory" in subparagraph 5 of paragraph II-3 of Article 18 of the VAT Code.
At first glance, this article appears to be very poorly drafted. It sorely lacks detail and seems to be broadly worded in a highly technical and specific area with major fiscal and economic implications. Even more seriously, its entry into force has been set for January 1, 2026, presenting all taxpayers with a fait accompli, without consultation with the professionals concerned, their organizations, or civil society.
The era of societal debate and education in the development of legal standards is now over. There is now only one decision-maker. Once the decision has been made, everyone must fall in line with its decrees, regardless of whether the text is ambiguous, imprecise, or even materially unenforceable. The principle is simple: there is no going back—the "back" being, of course, the period of democratic transition.
Unsurprisingly, this text immediately caused serious difficulties in its application, both legally and operationally, despite the significant risks incurred by the taxpayers concerned, which are already difficult to identify with any precision.
A major ambiguity regarding the population concerned
The poorly written text sparked an absurd debate: are the liberal professions affected or not?
At first glance, if we consider only the new subparagraph, the answer would appear to be yes, since the criterion used is that of activity—the provision of services—regardless of the nuances associated with the nature of certain professions (doctors, lawyers, etc.).
However, this interpretation immediately encounters a major legal difficulty: liberal professions are not subject to the obligation to issue invoices, but rather fee notes. The same Article 18 of the VAT Code classifies them as professionals earning non-commercial income and requires them to issue fee notes, not invoices.
The distinction is clear and explicitly enshrined in paragraph II bis of Article 18, which, although it imposes certain common requirements, confirms that these are two legally distinct documents.
Can we therefore consider that the new text implicitly equates a fee note with an electronic invoice? The answer is clearly no. Such an interpretation would imply confusion on the part of the legislator, which runs counter to the fundamental rules of legal interpretation.
This conclusion is confirmed:
- Firstly, by the very wording of the text ("service provision operations" and not "all service provision operations without exception"),
- secondly, by previous legislative interventions, notably in paragraph III-1 of the same article, which expressly distinguishes invoices from service notes.
This debate has only become so heated because the authorities have suggested that the liberal professions would be affected by the new requirement.
A reform that is materially impossible
Beyond the issue of the liberal professions, the reform introduced by the 2026 Finance Act is simply unenforceable for the majority of the service providers concerned, estimated at around 3.8 million professionals.
The logistical and material conditions necessary for integration into the electronic invoicing system do not exist. To join this system, taxpayers must:
- Obtain certification from the National Electronic Certification Agency (ANCE);
- Submit an application to Tunisian Trading Network (TTN);
- Take technical tests;
- Access the implementation of electronic invoicing;
- Then file your tax returns.
Each step involves paperwork, processing times that were already very long before the reform (four months on average), and financial costs. Yes, you have to pay to be able to declare and pay VAT.
The tax authorities do not have the human resources or infrastructure necessary to handle such a high volume of requests. The platforms, designed to process a few thousand files, are now overwhelmed by hundreds of thousands of requests.
Result: the reform is unenforceable, but the law has come into force. Professionals are stuck in a real quagmire:
- if they stop billing, their business collapses;
- if they issue paper invoices, they will incur fines ranging from 100 to 500 dinars per invoice, up to 500,000 dinars;
- If they accept payment without issuing an invoice, they face penalties ranging from 16 days to 3 years in prison and fines of 1,000 to 50,000 dinars (Article 94 of the Tax Rights and Procedures Code).
Political communication instead of a technical response
Faced with this mismanagement, swift action by the authorities was required: implementing decrees, clear explanatory notes, suspension of the entry into force. None of this was done.
On January 12, 2026, two weeks after the law came into force, President Kaïs Saïed spoke, as usual, via a video posted on his Facebook page. In it, he acknowledged the lack of suitable electronic platforms for SMEs and called for "flexibility in dealing with the issue."
This intervention only added to the confusion. On the one hand, it reveals a profound misunderstanding of the procedural and technical nature of tax law. On the other hand, the notion of "flexibility" is legally meaningless in an area governed by public policy rules, accompanied by criminal penalties.
On January 13, 2026, the Department of the Treasury simply repeated the President's words verbatim, without providing any legal or practical clarification. This impotence is not accidental: it is structural, in a system where the minister no longer has any room for independent decision-making.
When ideology replaces the law
Criminal and tax laws cannot be applied "flexibly." A law is either enforced or violated. There is no discretionary space allowing the administration to choose. The only rational solution would be to immediately postpone the entry into force of the text, to allow time to set up the necessary platforms, train the actors, and amend the system based on feedback from professionals.
But that would require a democratic rule of law. Yet we are faced with an authoritarian and anarchic regime, incapable of acknowledging its mistakes, preferring to sacrifice the economy and taxpayers rather than admit to an obvious legislative error.
Simply billing for services has become a nightmare. It vividly illustrates Kaïs Saïed's erratic management and the considerable damage caused by this improvised governance. The costs of this anarchy are mounting day by day.
One thing is now clear: Tunisians have every interest in putting an end to this improvised governance before the law is definitively corrupted, ceasing to be a tool for organization and social progress and becoming a factor of chaos and widespread disintegration.
