{"id":2110289,"date":"2026-08-27T19:02:59","date_gmt":"2026-08-27T17:02:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-08-27T19:02:59","modified_gmt":"2026-08-27T17:02:59","slug":"french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Foreign Supplier Invoice Rejected by a French E-Invoicing Platform: What a Foreign Founder Must Do in 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

A foreign founder can face a confusing message shortly after the French electronic invoicing reform starts: a supplier based in the United Kingdom, the United States, Switzerland or another European country sends an invoice, and a French platform displays \u201crejected\u201d. The message may look like a simple software error. It may instead reveal that the transaction has been placed in the wrong legal channel, that the recipient identifier is wrong, or that the invoice does not establish the French VAT treatment that the accounting team intends to use. Those are different problems with different evidence and different consequences.<\/p>\n

From 1 September 2026, every business established in France and liable for value added tax (VAT) must be able to receive electronic invoices. Large companies and undertakings in the intermediate category must also issue them from that date; small and medium-sized enterprises and micro-enterprises have a later issue date. That timetable does not mean that every foreign supplier must send every invoice through a French platform. The official French Tax Administration\u2019s FAQ for foreign businesses without a permanent establishment states that transactions between taxable persons established in France are e-invoicing, while other operations may fall within transaction or payment e-reporting. A cross-border invoice therefore has to be classified before it is corrected.<\/p>\n

This article gives a practical legal method for a French company owned by a foreign founder. It explains the distinction between a platform \u201crejection\u201d and a customer \u201crefusal\u201d, the information that should be checked, the treatment of a foreign supplier\u2019s VAT, the evidence needed to preserve a deduction or a reverse-charge entry, and the steps to take when the platform, supplier and accounting records do not agree. The rules cited are those available on 27 August 2026; the exact VAT place-of-supply analysis still depends on the goods, service, parties and establishments involved.<\/p>\n

For the broader incorporation and corporate-structuring route, see the firm\u2019s French company creation and corporate structuring page<\/a>. This article is deliberately narrower: it addresses the operational and legal response when a foreign-supplier invoice is rejected inside the French invoicing workflow.<\/p>\n

I. Why is a French e-invoicing platform rejecting a foreign supplier invoice?<\/h2>\n

A. Is this really an e-invoice, or should it be e-reporting?<\/h3>\n

The first question is not whether the file is a PDF, XML file or structured message. It is whether the transaction falls within the French domestic e-invoicing perimeter. French law starts with the general invoicing duty. Article 289 of the French General Tax Code (Code g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des imp\u00f4ts, or CGI) requires an invoice for taxable supplies made to another taxable person or to a non-taxable legal person, and provides that the invoice may be issued by a client or third party under a mandate. The official text states: \u201cL’assujetti doit conserver un double de toutes les factures \u00e9mises.\u201d An assujetti<\/em> is a person carrying out an independent economic activity for VAT purposes; it is not simply any person who receives an invoice.<\/p>\n

For the domestic e-invoicing channel, the decisive rule is Article 289 bis of the CGI<\/a>. It applies to invoices for operations covered by Article 289 where the issuer and recipient are taxable persons established, domiciled or habitually resident in France. The legal sentence is direct: \u201cL’\u00e9mission, la transmission et la r\u00e9ception des factures \u00e9lectroniques s’effectuent en recourant \u00e0 une plateforme agr\u00e9\u00e9e.\u201d A plateforme agr\u00e9\u00e9e<\/em> is an accredited platform registered by the French Tax Administration for the reform. A software package used for bookkeeping or invoicing is not automatically such a platform.<\/p>\n

The practical consequence for a foreign supplier is important. A French subsidiary buying a service from a foreign parent, a French company buying software from an American provider, or a French business receiving goods from a supplier established outside France does not automatically have a French-to-French e-invoice. The foreign supplier\u2019s country, any French fixed establishment, the place of the supply and the person liable for VAT must be identified. The supplier may have a reporting obligation in France without having the same e-invoicing reception obligation as a French-established business.<\/p>\n

The official FAQ published by the French Tax Administration for foreign companies without a French permanent establishment uses the following distinction: \u201cLes op\u00e9rations r\u00e9alis\u00e9es entre assujettis \u00e9tablis en France rel\u00e8vent de la facturation \u00e9lectronique (e-invoicing).\u201d It then explains that other operations can fall within transaction and, in some cases, payment e-reporting when one party is not a taxable person established in France. The phrase \u201cpermanent establishment\u201d here refers to the VAT concept of an establishment capable of carrying out or receiving the relevant operation, not merely a postal address, a French customer, a French bank account or an entry in a business directory.<\/p>\n

A French company should therefore run the following classification before asking a supplier to resend the invoice:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Situation<\/th>\nLikely channel<\/th>\nImmediate question<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
French supplier and French VAT-taxable company<\/td>\nDomestic e-invoicing through the accredited platform chain<\/td>\nIs the recipient\u2019s company identifier and directory routing correct?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Foreign supplier with no French establishment and French company as customer<\/td>\nCross-border invoice; possible reverse charge and reporting obligations depending on the operation<\/td>\nWho is liable for French VAT, and is the invoice being wrongly forced into domestic e-invoicing?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
French supplier and foreign customer<\/td>\nGenerally not a French-to-French e-invoice; transaction or payment e-reporting may apply<\/td>\nWhich data must the French supplier transmit, and when?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Foreign group company with a French establishment involved in the supply<\/td>\nPotentially domestic e-invoicing or another French reporting channel<\/td>\nWhich establishment actually supplied the goods or services?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Import of goods or an operation dealt with through customs<\/td>\nCustoms and VAT evidence, with any separate reporting treatment<\/td>\nIs the import document, rather than a domestic e-invoice, the controlling VAT evidence?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Article 290 of the CGI is also relevant for the cross-border analysis. It requires certain taxable persons not established in France, or their representative where required, to transmit electronically data relating to French-located supplies for which they are liable for VAT. The current text provides that those data are transmitted by the accredited platform chosen by the taxable person. That is a reporting duty; it is not a general rule that every invoice issued by a non-French supplier must enter the recipient\u2019s French e-invoice inbox.<\/p>\n

Consider a foreign software company with no French establishment that supplies a business-to-business service to a French SAS. A SAS, or soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e<\/em>, is a French simplified joint-stock company. The foreign supplier may issue an invoice without French VAT where the reverse charge applies. The French company may still have to account for French VAT and may, if the substantive conditions are met, deduct the same amount. A platform rejecting that foreign PDF because it is not a domestic e-invoice does not turn the transaction into a French-to-French e-invoice. The accounting team should not repair the wrong channel by inventing a French supplier identity or by adding a French VAT amount that was never due.<\/p>\n

Conversely, a French company that receives an invoice from a foreign group entity must not assume that the words \u201cforeign parent\u201d settle the question. If the parent has a French establishment that supplied the service, or if the operation is legally located in France with French VAT due from the supplier, the result can change. Contracts, statements of work, personnel, delivery location, VAT registrations, the entity named on the order and the actual performance of the service should be read together.<\/p>\n

The timetable must also be kept separate from the perimeter. The official Service Public Entreprendre guidance on invoicing<\/a> states that all companies established in France and liable for VAT must be able to receive electronic invoices from 1 September 2026, while the obligation to issue begins on that date for large companies and undertakings in the intermediate category and on 1 September 2027 for small and medium-sized enterprises and micro-enterprises. A French start-up therefore needs a receiving capability even when a particular foreign supplier remains outside the domestic e-invoice channel.<\/p>\n

B. Does \u201crejected\u201d mean a technical failure, a customer refusal or a tax defect?<\/h3>\n

\u201cRejected\u201d is not a sufficient legal diagnosis. The reform assigns different processing statuses. Article 41 septies G of Annex IV to the CGI<\/a>, in force from 29 July 2026, lists \u201cD\u00e9p\u00f4t\u201d when the issuer\u2019s platform accepts the invoice, \u201cRejet\u201d by the issuer\u2019s or recipient\u2019s platform when the format or controls are not compliant, \u201cRefus\u201d by the recipient, and \u201cEncaiss\u00e9e\u201d for a paid invoice. The statutory wording includes: \u201c2\u00b0 \u00ab Rejet \u00bb par la plateforme de l’\u00e9metteur ou du destinataire\u201d and separately \u201c3\u00b0 \u00ab Refus \u00bb par le destinataire\u201d. The first is a platform processing event; the second is a commercial or accounting response by the customer.<\/p>\n

This distinction controls the next step. A rejet<\/em> can be caused by an invalid structured format, a missing mandatory field, an identifier that cannot be matched in the central directory, a technical control failure or an attempted route that the transaction is not permitted to use. A refus<\/em> can mean that the recipient disputes the delivery, price, purchase order, supplier identity, duplicate invoice, tax treatment or contractual performance. A rejected platform transmission is not, by itself, proof that the underlying debt has disappeared. A customer refusal is not, by itself, proof that the supplier\u2019s invoice is technically invalid.<\/p>\n

Article 242 nonies K of Annex II to the CGI gives the accredited platforms a conformity-control role. It states that \u201cles plateformes agr\u00e9\u00e9es proc\u00e8dent \u00e0 des contr\u00f4les de conformit\u00e9 des donn\u00e9es de facturation pr\u00e9cis\u00e9s par arr\u00eat\u00e9 du ministre charg\u00e9 du budget.\u201d The platform is therefore expected to return a status and a reason that can be investigated. The company should obtain the full status code, not merely a screenshot saying \u201crejected\u201d. It should record the platform name, the platform of the supplier if different, the invoice identifier, the time of submission, the technical error, the recipient identifier used, and whether the file reached the recipient\u2019s platform at all.<\/p>\n

The central directory creates a further trap for foreign founders. The directory is designed to route an invoice from the supplier\u2019s platform to the customer\u2019s platform. A French legal entity is usually identified by its SIREN, the nine-digit national identifier of the legal unit. A SIRET is the fourteen-digit identifier for a particular establishment and can help distinguish locations, but it should not be substituted casually for the identifier required by the relevant flow. The Kbis, meaning the official extract from the French Trade and Companies Register, may display company information, but the Kbis itself is not a substitute for the structured routing data.<\/p>\n

The French Tax Administration\u2019s foreign-company FAQ warns that a foreign business without a French permanent establishment can appear in the directory if it has a SIREN and is liable for VAT, without thereby acquiring a general e-invoice reception obligation. That matters when a platform says, \u201cThe supplier is not found,\u201d or when a foreign parent appears in a search result and the operator concludes that a French domestic invoice is mandatory. Presence in the directory, a VAT number, a French customer and a French bank account are separate facts.<\/p>\n

Next, check whether the invoice is a valid invoice even outside the reform channel. Article 242 nonies A of Annex II to the CGI<\/a> lists mandatory particulars under Article 289, including the complete names, identifiers and addresses of the taxable person and customer, the VAT identification number where required, invoice number, date, description, taxable amount, rate and tax. New structured data applicable to invoices covered by Article 289 bis from 1 September 2026 are also described by the text. A foreign supplier may not have a French SIREN, so the correct alternative identifier and the proper reporting route must be used; the absence of a French identifier is not automatically evidence of fraud.<\/p>\n

The currency and language should also be separated from the electronic format question. Article 289 allows amounts to be expressed in a currency other than euros, provided the tax payable or to be regularised is determined in euros, and it allows the tax service to request a French translation of a foreign-language invoice for a control. A pound or dollar amount does not automatically invalidate an invoice. It does require the accounting file to preserve the exchange-rate method, the euro VAT calculation where relevant, and the source document in its original form.<\/p>\n

Finally, distinguish a routing defect from a VAT defect. A platform can reject a message because the invoice uses the wrong recipient endpoint even though the underlying VAT treatment is correct. A platform can accept a technically valid structured invoice even though the supplier charged the wrong VAT. Technical acceptance is not a tax clearance. That is why a foreign-owned French company should create two separate records: a transmission file containing status evidence and a tax file containing the contract, supply analysis, VAT calculation, payment and accounting entry.<\/p>\n

II. What should a foreign founder do after the rejection?<\/h2>\n

A. How can the company correct routing and protect its VAT evidence?<\/h3>\n

The safest response is a controlled reconstruction, not repeated resubmission. Repeatedly uploading the same file can create duplicate records, obscure the first rejection time and make it difficult to prove whether the supplier or recipient platform caused the failure. Freeze the original invoice and its metadata first. Download the original PDF or structured file, the email or portal message through which it arrived, the purchase order, the platform status, the error code, the transmission receipt and any reply from the supplier. Preserve the file without overwriting it. If the platform provides a technical report, save it in the same case folder as the invoice.<\/p>\n

Then establish a one-page transaction map. Identify the legal name and country of the supplier; whether the supplier has a French establishment; the French company\u2019s legal name, SIREN and establishment concerned; the customer and delivery location; the type of goods or service; the date of supply; the contractual payment terms; the currency; the supplier\u2019s VAT number; and the entity that is legally liable for VAT. Add the relevant VAT place-of-supply rule and the reason why French VAT is charged, not charged, exempt or reverse-charged. This map is more useful than a generic statement that the supplier is \u201cinternational\u201d.<\/p>\n

The identity check should be exact. Compare the invoice name to the legal entity named in the contract and the company registration extract. Compare the SIREN to the French legal unit and the recipient endpoint used by the platform. If a group uses a shared service centre, identify the entity that actually supplied the service and the entity issuing the invoice. Compare the foreign VAT number with the country prefix and the contracting entity. Confirm the bank details separately; a correct bank account does not prove the supplier identity, and a platform route does not prove that payment instructions are safe.<\/p>\n

The next step depends on the classification:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. If domestic e-invoicing applies:<\/strong> ask the supplier to correct the precise field or route that caused the rejection and resend through its accredited platform or a compatible solution connected to one. Do not create a second invoice number merely to work around a directory error. If the original invoice was issued and must be corrected, the supplier should use an appropriate corrective invoice or credit note referencing the original, with a clear audit trail.<\/li>\n
  2. If the transaction is cross-border and outside domestic e-invoicing:<\/strong> do not force the invoice into the French domestic channel simply because the customer is French. Ask the supplier to confirm the legal VAT treatment and the reporting route. Book the foreign invoice in the ordinary accounting process, determine whether the French company must self-account for VAT, and preserve the foreign invoice and transaction evidence. If French e-reporting applies to the relevant taxable person, use the accredited platform selected for that reporting duty, not an improvised domestic e-invoice.<\/li>\n
  3. If the supplier charged foreign VAT:<\/strong> stop the French VAT entry until the charge is explained. Foreign VAT is not automatically deductible on a French VAT return. It may require a correction by the supplier or a separate refund procedure in the country that charged it. The French company should not deduct both foreign VAT and French reverse-charge VAT on the same economic transaction.<\/li>\n
  4. If the supplier\u2019s French establishment supplied the operation:<\/strong> revisit the domestic invoice route, the establishment identifier, the directory record and the VAT registration. The fact that the parent company is abroad does not remove a French establishment from the analysis.<\/li>\n
  5. If the message was accepted but the customer refuses it:<\/strong> move the matter to a commercial and performance review. Check delivery, service completion, purchase-order approval, price, duplicate status and contract terms. A recipient refusal can require a credit note, a factual response or payment escalation; it is not solved by changing XML syntax.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    VAT deduction requires a separate legal check. Article 271 of the CGI<\/a> provides the general mechanism and states: \u201cLe droit \u00e0 d\u00e9duction prend naissance lorsque la taxe d\u00e9ductible devient exigible chez le redevable.\u201d The timing of the right does not mean that every document labelled \u201cinvoice\u201d is sufficient. The company must connect the tax to a real business purchase, show that the tax is due or validly self-accounted for, use the correct period and retain the supporting documentation. If the invoice is being corrected, the VAT return should be aligned with the correction rather than with the date on which an employee finally obtains a readable PDF.<\/p>\n

    For a foreign service supplier, Article 283 of the CGI<\/a> is a key starting point. It provides, for specified services supplied by a person established outside France, that VAT is paid by the French taxable recipient who has a French VAT identification number. The official provision uses the words \u201cla taxe est acquitt\u00e9e par l’acqu\u00e9reur, le destinataire ou le preneur\u201d. The rule is not universal: the place of supply, the service category, any fixed establishment, exemptions and special schemes must all be checked. The correct conclusion can be a reverse-charge entry, no French VAT, French VAT charged by the supplier or a different treatment.<\/p>\n

    Article 242 nonies A and the more specific structured-data rules help the company test what the invoice and report must contain. Article 41 septies D of Annex IV to the CGI<\/a>, effective for the reform\u2019s 1 September 2026 data, identifies items such as the SIREN of the French-established taxable person, taxable totals by rate, VAT amounts, applicable rate, total payable excluding tax, currency and, where relevant, the \u201cautoliquidation\u201d wording. \u201cAutoliquidation\u201d means reverse charge: the customer, rather than the supplier, declares the VAT under the applicable rule. It should never be inserted merely because the supplier is foreign.<\/p>\n

    Use a corrected invoice only for a real correction. The French public guidance explains that an issued invoice cannot simply be edited and that a corrective invoice should refer to the original and carry a new number; after payment, an adjustment generally uses a credit note. Article 289 also treats a document modifying the initial invoice and referring to it specifically and unequivocally as an invoice that must contain the required particulars. A corrected file should therefore show the original number, reason for correction, changed fields, VAT consequence and relationship to the payment. The old invoice should remain in the audit folder.<\/p>\n

    Data transmission and accounting evidence have different clocks. For invoices exchanged through the reform chain, Article 242 nonies J of Annex II to the CGI<\/a> requires structured data among the mandatory invoice information. Article 242 nonies L of the same Annex<\/a> states that invoice data are transmitted to the administration by the issuer\u2019s accredited platform within twenty-four hours of deposit, under the conditions set by the budget minister. A foreign founder should not confuse that platform transmission deadline with the deadline for correcting the supplier\u2019s commercial document or filing a VAT return.<\/p>\n

    Where the company is within the e-reporting perimeter, the official foreign-business FAQ gives additional operational detail. For a foreign business without a French permanent establishment, it indicates that e-reporting can cover taxable operations for which that business is liable, while operations subject to reverse charge and payment reporting may follow different rules. It also identifies transaction data such as the French SIREN, foreign intra-Community VAT number, countries, transaction category, issue date, invoice number, taxable totals, VAT rate, tax amount and currency. Those fields are a useful checklist, but they do not replace the transaction-specific classification.<\/p>\n

    Build a reconciliation table before closing the accounting period. One column should contain the legal invoice number and date; another the platform status and timestamp; another the supplier\u2019s correction or confirmation; another the VAT treatment and declaration line; another the payment date; and another the evidence location. If the invoice is rejected, the table should say whether a replacement was issued, whether the original remains legally relevant, and how duplicate VAT deduction was prevented. If the platform later changes the status, retain both the initial and final status records.<\/p>\n

    Finally, do not rely on an ordinary PDF alone where the reform requires structured transmission, but do not discard a cross-border PDF merely because it did not pass through the French directory. The controlling question is the legal scope of the operation and the integrity of the evidence. A foreign invoice can be valid evidence of a cross-border purchase while being the wrong object for domestic e-invoice routing. The reverse is also true: a technically structured document can still fail to prove that the supplier supplied the service, that the French entity was the customer or that the VAT was legally due.<\/p>\n

    B. What deadlines, sanctions and remedies must the company preserve?<\/h3>\n

    The first remedy is a precise technical complaint. Address it to the platform that generated the rejection and identify the invoice number, status, time, sender platform, recipient platform, endpoint, identifier, format and exact error code. Ask a binary question: was the invoice rejected because it failed a format or data control, or because the transaction was sent through a channel that does not apply? Ask for the rule or control that was triggered, the field expected, and whether the platform considers the invoice deposited, transmitted, refused or absent. A generic request to \u201cunlock the account\u201d is less useful than a request tied to one invoice and one status.<\/p>\n

    The second remedy is a written supplier request. Give the supplier the transaction map, not an instruction to add French VAT without analysis. Ask it to confirm the issuing entity, establishment, place of supply, VAT number, reverse-charge basis if applicable, reporting obligation, original invoice number and proposed correction. If it uses a compatible accounting solution, ask which accredited platform receives the outbound data. A foreign supplier may need to coordinate with its own platform, French representative or tax adviser; a French customer should retain that coordination as evidence.<\/p>\n

    The third remedy is an internal decision by the French company. A founder who lives abroad, a director who signs from another country or a finance team based at the foreign parent must designate the French legal entity responsible for the file. That entity should decide whether to accept the purchase, dispute performance, pay the undisputed amount, self-account for VAT or defer the tax entry pending clarification. The decision should be recorded with its date and approving person. This matters when the Kbis, bank record, group invoice and platform account show different names.<\/p>\n

    Commercial invoicing rules remain relevant. Article L. 441-9 of the French Commercial Code<\/a> provides that a professional purchase or service is invoiced, that the seller delivers the invoice when the delivery or service occurs and that the buyer must claim it. The concise statutory phrase is: \u201cL’acheteur est tenu de la r\u00e9clamer.\u201d The same provision addresses payment date, late-payment penalties and the recovery indemnity. A technical rejection should not be used as a reason to let a valid supplier invoice disappear from the purchase ledger, nor should a supplier use a platform status to avoid a genuine performance dispute.<\/p>\n

    Deadlines should be placed on a calendar with three separate entries: the supplier\u2019s correction deadline, the accounting close and VAT declaration deadline, and the platform or e-reporting transmission deadline. If the original invoice is received near a VAT filing cut-off, document the provisional treatment and the reason for any deferral. A late correction is not necessarily a lost deduction, but an unexplained late change makes the file harder to defend. A French company dealing with a foreign parent should also align intercompany invoice dates, service reports, transfer-pricing support and payment records; the e-invoicing status does not prove the arm\u2019s-length nature of a management charge.<\/p>\n

    Sanctions must be read without exaggeration. Article 1737 of the CGI<\/a>, in the version applicable around the start of the reform, provides a fifty-euro fine per invoice for failure by a taxable person to issue an electronic invoice under Article 289 bis, capped at fifteen thousand euros for the civil year. It also provides a formal-notice mechanism and a five-hundred-euro fine for continued failure to use an accredited platform for required reception. These rules do not mean that every foreign supplier\u2019s invoice is subject to the domestic issue fine. First determine whether the supplier and operation are within the relevant French obligation.<\/p>\n

    A platform failure may also raise a contractual question. The official French Tax Administration explains that an accredited platform can issue, transmit and receive invoices, convert a supplier\u2019s format for a customer, preserve authenticity, integrity, readability and completeness, transmit invoice data and transmit payment data. If the platform\u2019s error is persistent, the company should review its platform agreement, service levels, support commitments, data-export rights and responsibility for a failed route. Do not make an untested mass migration on the eve of a VAT filing. Export the affected invoices and status logs first, then run a controlled test with the platform and the supplier.<\/p>\n

    Preservation is part of the remedy. Article 289 requires a duplicate of invoices, and Article L. 102 B of the French Book of Tax Procedures<\/a> requires books, records, documents and supporting documents that can be inspected by the administration to be kept for the applicable period. For tax-deduction evidence, the text states that \u201cLes pi\u00e8ces justificatives relatives \u00e0 des op\u00e9rations ouvrant droit \u00e0 une d\u00e9duction en mati\u00e8re de taxes sur le chiffre d’affaires sont conserv\u00e9es pendant le d\u00e9lai pr\u00e9vu au premier alin\u00e9a.\u201d As at the date of this article, that general period is six years for the documents covered by the current provision; other accounting or commercial retention rules can require a longer period. Keep the longer applicable period when in doubt.<\/p>\n

    The file should contain at least: the unmodified original invoice; structured file and rendered copy; email headers or portal receipt; contract and purchase order; supplier identity and VAT verification; place-of-supply memo; platform status and technical logs; directory search or routing record; corrected invoice or credit note; payment proof; accounting entry; VAT return line; and correspondence showing the steps taken. If a French tax authority asks for a translation, the original and the translation should remain together, with the translator and date identified. A translation should not silently change a supplier name, number, amount, date or tax wording.<\/p>\n

    If the platform and supplier disagree, escalate in writing and preserve the company\u2019s tax position. The French company can ask its accounting team to flag the amount as pending classification, pay an undisputed commercial amount without duplicating a VAT entry, or use the correction mechanism available under the applicable VAT rules. If an adjustment is later proposed during a tax audit, the company should respond within the procedure and time limit stated in the notice, explaining the transaction, evidence, correction history and legal basis. The right response is not to create a replacement invoice with a convenient date.<\/p>\n

    Three recurring examples show why the distinction matters. First, a United States software supplier sends a monthly invoice without French VAT and the platform rejects it because the French customer tried to upload the PDF as a domestic e-invoice. The company should test the service\u2019s place of supply and reverse-charge rules, keep the supplier invoice, record the French VAT treatment and use any required reporting route. Second, a German supplier charges German VAT on equipment delivered to France. The French company should determine whether the charge is correct, whether an intra-Community acquisition or import treatment applies and whether the German VAT must be corrected or claimed through a separate procedure; it should not simply deduct German VAT on its French return. Third, a French subsidiary receives a management-fee invoice from a foreign parent whose French branch performed part of the work. The entities, establishment, service evidence and VAT treatment must be mapped before the route is selected.<\/p>\n

    Foreign founders should also beware of the \u201csoftware solved it\u201d assumption. A compatible solution can automate data entry, OCR, approval, accounting and connections, but it is not necessarily an accredited platform. The official FAQ explains that a compatible solution must provide compatible functions and be connected to at least one accredited platform to transmit the required invoices and information. Ask for the name of the accredited platform, the direction of the connection, the status records available to the customer and the export format for an audit. An invoice that cannot be retrieved with its status, source and correction history is an operational risk even when it was accepted.<\/p>\n

    The company should use the official sources as a verification layer. The French Tax Administration page on accredited platforms<\/a> explains the platform roles and publishes the official list. The FAQ for foreign businesses without a French permanent establishment<\/a> addresses e-invoicing, e-reporting, foreign identifiers, directories, payment data and platform choice. The Service Public Entreprendre reform notice<\/a> gives the timetable and the additional invoice particulars. Those pages do not replace legal advice on an individual transaction, but they help the founder test whether a platform\u2019s explanation is consistent with the national framework.<\/p>\n

    Keep the escalation proportionate. A one-off invalid recipient identifier may need a correction and a new status check. A recurring rejection across suppliers may show that the company\u2019s directory data, establishment record, software mapping or platform contract is wrong. A rejection combined with unexplained VAT, a changed bank account, a new foreign entity or a request to conceal the supplier identity needs enhanced review before payment. If the amount is material or the transaction is intercompany, obtain a written legal and tax analysis before filing the return.<\/p>\n

    Conclusion<\/h2>\n

    A foreign supplier invoice rejected by a French e-invoicing platform is a classification problem before it is a formatting problem. The French company should first decide whether the operation is domestic e-invoicing, cross-border invoicing, e-reporting, reverse charge, import VAT or another treatment. It should then identify the exact platform status: deposit, rejection, recipient refusal or payment. Only after those two steps should it correct the route or document.<\/p>\n

    The defensible file connects the legal entities, establishments, transaction, VAT rule, invoice, platform message, correction, payment and declaration. It never invents a French identifier, French VAT or a replacement date merely to satisfy a software control. For a company owned from abroad, that discipline protects both the French business and the founder who must explain the file later to a bank, accountant, platform or tax authority.<\/p>\n

    Need a quick opinion on your case<\/strong><\/p>\n

    You can arrange a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm to review the rejected invoice, the foreign supplier\u2019s status, the VAT treatment and the evidence to preserve.<\/p>\n

    Call +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a> (Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen), or use the firm\u2019s contact form<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    A rejected foreign-supplier invoice can disrupt VAT evidence, e-invoicing routing and a French company\u2019s tax records. This 2026 guide explains what to check and how to respond.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16318,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kj_source_type":"","_kj_official_id":"","_kj_official_url":"","_kj_judilibre_id":"","_kj_jur":"","_kj_lieu":"","_kj_chambre":"","_kj_rg":"","_kj_date":"","activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federated","footnotes":""},"categories":[80314,80313],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2110289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-doing-business-in-france"],"yoast_head":"\nForeign Supplier Invoice Rejected by a French E-Invoicing Platform: What a Foreign Founder Must Do in 2026 - Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Foreign Supplier Invoice Rejected by a French E-Invoicing Platform: What a Foreign Founder Must Do in 2026\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A rejected foreign-supplier invoice can disrupt VAT evidence, e-invoicing routing and a French company\u2019s tax records. This 2026 guide explains what to check and how to respond.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-27T17:02:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kohen\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kohen\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/27\\\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/27\\\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Kohen\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6254a643e6239d803134a01c800381bd\"},\"headline\":\"Foreign Supplier Invoice Rejected by a French E-Invoicing Platform: What a Foreign Founder Must Do in 2026\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-27T17:02:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/27\\\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":5254,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/27\\\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/11\\\/mohamed-nohassi-2UZMc83XJ8I-unsplash.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"D\u00e9cryptage\",\"Doing Business in France\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"citation\":\"Foreign Supplier Invoice Rejected by a French E-Invoicing Platform: What a Foreign Founder Must Do in 2026\",\"about\":[{\"@type\":\"Thing\",\"name\":\"D\u00e9cryptage\"},{\"@type\":\"Thing\",\"name\":\"Doing Business in France\"}],\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-27T17:02:59+00:00\",\"speakable\":{\"@type\":\"SpeakableSpecification\",\"cssSelector\":[\".article-content > p:first-of-type\"]}},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/27\\\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/27\\\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\\\/\",\"name\":\"Foreign Supplier Invoice Rejected by a French E-Invoicing Platform: What a Foreign Founder Must Do in 2026 - Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/27\\\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/27\\\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/11\\\/mohamed-nohassi-2UZMc83XJ8I-unsplash.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-27T17:02:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/27\\\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/27\\\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/27\\\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/11\\\/mohamed-nohassi-2UZMc83XJ8I-unsplash.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/11\\\/mohamed-nohassi-2UZMc83XJ8I-unsplash.webp\",\"width\":6528,\"height\":4027},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/27\\\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Foreign Supplier Invoice Rejected by a French E-Invoicing Platform: What a Foreign Founder Must Do in 2026\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, attorney specialized in real estate and business law in Paris, advises and assists companies and individuals in their real estate, commercial and contractual transactions. He also handles real estate litigation and the resolution of complex commercial disputes.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6254a643e6239d803134a01c800381bd\",\"name\":\"Kohen\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Kohen\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/author\\\/kohenmlk\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Foreign Supplier Invoice Rejected by a French E-Invoicing Platform: What a Foreign Founder Must Do in 2026 - Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Foreign Supplier Invoice Rejected by a French E-Invoicing Platform: What a Foreign Founder Must Do in 2026","og_description":"A rejected foreign-supplier invoice can disrupt VAT evidence, e-invoicing routing and a French company\u2019s tax records. This 2026 guide explains what to check and how to respond.","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris","article_published_time":"2026-08-27T17:02:59+00:00","author":"Kohen","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kohen","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/"},"author":{"name":"Kohen","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/6254a643e6239d803134a01c800381bd"},"headline":"Foreign Supplier Invoice Rejected by a French E-Invoicing Platform: What a Foreign Founder Must Do in 2026","datePublished":"2026-08-27T17:02:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/"},"wordCount":5254,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/mohamed-nohassi-2UZMc83XJ8I-unsplash.webp","articleSection":["D\u00e9cryptage","Doing Business in France"],"inLanguage":"en-US","citation":"Foreign Supplier Invoice Rejected by a French E-Invoicing Platform: What a Foreign Founder Must Do in 2026","about":[{"@type":"Thing","name":"D\u00e9cryptage"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"Doing Business in France"}],"dateModified":"2026-08-27T17:02:59+00:00","speakable":{"@type":"SpeakableSpecification","cssSelector":[".article-content > p:first-of-type"]}},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/","name":"Foreign Supplier Invoice Rejected by a French E-Invoicing Platform: What a Foreign Founder Must Do in 2026 - Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/mohamed-nohassi-2UZMc83XJ8I-unsplash.webp","datePublished":"2026-08-27T17:02:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/mohamed-nohassi-2UZMc83XJ8I-unsplash.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/mohamed-nohassi-2UZMc83XJ8I-unsplash.webp","width":6528,"height":4027},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-company-e-invoicing-foreign-supplier-rejected-vat-evidence-2026\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Foreign Supplier Invoice Rejected by a French E-Invoicing Platform: What a Foreign Founder Must Do in 2026"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, attorney specialized in real estate and business law in Paris, advises and assists companies and individuals in their real estate, commercial and contractual transactions. He also handles real estate litigation and the resolution of complex commercial disputes.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/6254a643e6239d803134a01c800381bd","name":"Kohen","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","caption":"Kohen"},"url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/author\/kohenmlk\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2110289","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/251031309"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2110289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2110289\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16318"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2110289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2110289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2110289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}