The Nexus on Tour: TBM Group Indirect Tax Technology Summit
Two Conferences Happened in the Same Room
This week I had the pleasure of visiting the 10th Annnual strategic indirect tax conference in Amsterdam, courtesy of the fine folks at TBM Group. Now I do recommend getting out there to these events as the network and community is amazing, but for those that couldn’t make it, here’s my take.
Vendor Narrative:
One ran through the vendor slots: future-ready ecosystems, foundations for compliance, a billion invoices as proof of scale. Confident. Architectural. Forward-leaning. In that version, the fix is always a platform.
Sovos framed its slot around building a “future-ready” ecosystem, Vertex pitched master data as the foundation compliance sits on, and Meridian Global Services described the reporting shift as a paradigm to architect for — all three treating the mandate as a design problem with a design answer. Thomson Reuters played the same register from a different angle, positioning itself as interpreter of VIDA rather than seller of a fix, moderating rather than pitching.
A second theme ran alongside it: scale as proof. Marosa by Wolters Kluwer and Comarch spent time across both days on e-invoicing provider models and the trade-offs between them, and Cygnet Infotech built its entire slot around a billion processed invoices — adoption-at-scale doing the persuading instead of a features list.
Customer Narrative:
The customer sessions used that same stage to name friction the vendor sessions mostly skipped. Valentino opened asking who owns this: centralized or not, and whether tax teams actually have the skills for what’s coming. Hitachi Energy picked up the same thread from the other end of the lifecycle, asking who manages the technology once it’s live and calling the onboarding hurdle “not so hidden” — an admission, not a pitch.
A second theme was unresolved exposure. Mercedes-Benz spent its slot on live EU VAT court decisions that no platform resolves. Joseph Ribkoff covered supply chain and geopolitical exposure the tax function has to absorb rather than license away. Revolut worked through the seams between indirect tax, direct tax, and transfer pricing — problems that sit between systems, not inside one.
Where They Complement
Structural agreement. Both sides treat real-time reporting (VIDA, e-invoicing mandates) as a structural shift, not a filing update. Nobody in either camp argued otherwise.
AI skepticism, from both directions. Fonoa’s vendor-side caution and the practitioner “avoid generic outputs” framing point the same way. Vendor and buyer skepticism agreeing is a real market-maturity signal — not just messaging discipline.
Master data as the shared gap. Vertex’s governance pitch and Hitachi Energy’s onboarding admission are two descriptions of the same underlying problem, seen from opposite sides of the sale.
Where They Diverge
Orientation. Vendor sessions sell forward — roadmap, future-ready, scale. Customer sessions talk present-tense — maintenance, ownership, accountability. The agenda reads optimistic in vendor slots and cautious in customer slots, even though both are equally on the program.
Unit of the problem. Vendors diagnose an architecture gap: the right platform fixes it. Customers diagnose an organizational gap: the right operating model, skills, and accountability fix it. Same mandate, different diagnosis.
Lifecycle stage. Vendor programming clusters around build/deploy — strategy, data model, provider selection. Customer programming clusters around live-with-it — disputes, onboarding, cross-border shocks. Together they cover the full lifecycle; neither narrative alone does.
The takeaway: read the vendor narrative for what’s possible. Read the customer narrative for what it takes to run once it’s live and how much it solves. Skip either one, and you’re pricing a platform off half the truth.
Now this week’s feature is one I’ve been looking forward to for ages….
🗣️ Inside Uber’s Tax Stack: An interview with Diyan Mihaylov
A Product Manager’s View on Vendors, AI, and What Comes Next
Diyan (Diddo) Mihaylov has spent more than four years as a Senior Product Manager on Uber’s FinTech, Tax & Compliance team, covering e-invoicing, indirect tax determination, and reporting for a business that makes over a thousand filings a year across 70+ jurisdictions.
He also writes one of the sharper operator-voice Substacks in tax technology, pairing the mechanics of running tax at enormous scale with a clear-eyed view of where AI is actually changing the work as opposed to where vendor marketing says it is. I sat down with him to talk through where vendors earn their keep and where they don’t, whether value sits in UX or the underlying data layer, whether any vendor can own the tax “OS,” and where he thinks AI is taking tasks, careers, and pricing next.
Paul Guyer: Give us a quick introduction — what do you do at Uber?
Diyan Mihaylov: I’m currently a Senior Product Manager at Uber within the tax domain. I’ve been there a little over four years, joining right around when the company turned profitable — a big deal, but it also meant thinking seriously about tax and the complexity that brings, from Pillar Two to additional reporting. I sit on the teams that handle e-invoicing, indirect taxation, and tax determination: more than a thousand filings each year, across 70+ jurisdictions, for hundreds of Uber entities globally. And the thing that makes this seat different: I sit on the side of the table that creates the tax facts, not the side that reports them. Most people in tax start their story at the trial balance. Mine starts at the transaction, months earlier, in a room where nobody is thinking about VAT yet.
Product Manager vs. Tax Technology Manager
Paul: You’re described as a product manager rather than a tax technology manager. Is that just a technology-company label, or is there a real difference in the discipline?
Diyan: Good question. For at least the past 15 to 20 years, taxation — private and public sector alike — has been handled by complex technology platforms; nobody’s closing books with pen and paper anymore. What’s changed recently is that the authorities moved from reading returns to querying data directly. That forced tax and technology departments in the private sector to develop new roles to adapt and prepare. These developments created two distinct roles: the tax technology manager and the product manager on the tax side.
The tax tech manager is, in most cases, very focused on owning the tools of the tax department — reporting, forecasting, reconciliation. But those tools need to work off something first: data. That’s where the product manager comes in. I make sure the data flows through the right APIs, schemas, data contracts, stable deployments, and acceptable latency. What’s more, since our tax determination workflows are intertwined with checkout, we also need redundancies built in for transient errors that may interfere with the normal use of the Uber app. I am monitoring those constantly.
Paul: And with that, you get other skills and capabilities developing alongside it, right?
Diyan: Exactly. The tax tech manager is strong on knowing the right answer — is this audit-defensible, is the tax calculated correctly. The product manager focuses on whether the master data management and schema are right, and whether the APIs and tax determination flows work as expected. The two roles complement each other.
Thinking in Flows, Not Tools
Paul: Sounds like a broader role in scope. What does the stack actually look like in your world — it’s not just vendor components, there’s a lot of internal plumbing too?
Diyan: The best way to illustrate this is to think in terms of flows rather than tools and software — it gives a much better picture of the whole process. You start with the transaction: every time someone takes an Uber, money moves, and you’re plugging in tax determination and document issuance, standing in the critical path of the transaction being executed correctly and promptly. From there you have the components — vendor or internal — handling tax determination, invoice format, and document templates. Around all of that sits monitoring, latency, stability, reliability, PagerDuty — everything that keeps the process working.
And it’s worth being precise about the layers, because they aren’t equally served. Transaction origination, master and reference data, data staging, lineage and defence — those four, nobody sells and nobody really owns. Determination and filing are the two commercially mature layers, and they’re the two that were already fine.
Where Vendors Earn Their Keep — and Where They Fall Short
Paul: I came up on the vendor side, where the pitch was always to own the end-to-end process — calculation and filing, then e-invoicing in the middle too. Vendors want to be as sticky and embedded as possible. Where do they do a good job supporting the environment you’ve described, and where are they falling short?
Diyan: I recently read the results of a survey of 170 tax leaders published by the Thomson Reuters Institute. It said that 51% of corporate tax departments have bought no new tax technology in the last twelve months, and dissatisfaction with their current tech stack went from 34% to 56% in two years. This strongly suggests people stopped buying because their last purchase didn’t do what they expected.
Vendors are part and parcel of making this successful, and we work with many of them. One strong area is local context — monitoring regulatory changes, much of it automated now, sourced from vendors with significant local presence, because if you’re not present locally, you can’t get ahead of these changes. E-invoicing is another strong area, again because connecting to government technology platforms isn’t trivial — in many jurisdictions you need someone showing up and speaking Arabic or Spanish to the government’s tech team, not something a company handling e-invoicing centrally from one office can achieve. Tax determination is similar: rates change constantly, and without local context it’s hard to keep up.
“Right now, there’s no vendor that provides an end-to-end platform we can immediately internalise — it’s more that we use components.”
Where I see vendors struggle — and where the solutions often aren’t what I’d expect — is when a vendor has to tackle a very complex entity structure, like Uber’s or similar companies’, where business models include different types of money movement. Vendor product taxonomies are often too rigid to accommodate that. I think that’s expected, though — if I were a vendor, I’d build for the standard use case to grow the business, not build my solution to serve two companies in the world.
Paul: Well — yes and no. I think you build for your ICP, and if your ICP is complex multinational organisations with difficult structures and large entity groups and different models, then that’s what you build for. So selling to a thousand companies that look like Uber is a different build entirely. But you’re also fair that you start with something that works and build on it — maybe those are just edge cases.
Diyan: Yes, I think that’s fair.
Paul: From a flow perspective — a process touching internal apps and two or three external vendors — do vendors serve that whole business process well, or just their own narrow slice?
Diyan: When I look at vendors, I try to understand what they’re really good at, and where we need to build together or where there’s uncertainty — that’s how I evaluate what to use. Right now, there’s no vendor that provides an end-to-end platform we can immediately internalise; it’s more that we use components. Another weakness, especially with new AI tools, is audit trail and defensibility. And the reason that matters more every year is what’s happening on the other side of the table. HMRC has a ten-year contract with Quantexa to build one resolved view of every taxpayer from its own systems. The IRS runs Palantir’s SNAP across more than 100 legacy databases. So the basic question for any vendor pitching AI-driven reconciliation is: can I track back which model was used, what decision was made, who confirmed it? That’s where things get complicated, and the solutions are still in their infancy. Especially because according to Vertex’s July 2026 research, 80% of enterprises say they only get to audit readiness through significant manual effort.
Paul: And then it’s a black box, isn’t it. There was always a discussion, from the vendor side, about how defensible that decisioning actually was — you want to automate it, but someone still needs to be able to unpick it and stand by it.
The UX Debate: Will Agents Replace the Reporting Interface?
Paul: I want to push on the UX side of this specifically, because last year I screened a number of solutions for VAT reporting.
Diyan: What I noticed is there’s a heavy emphasis on UI — integrating bots into the UI, into reporting, and so on. What I felt was missing is that I think we’ll switch to agentic workflows, so you won’t need to go and look into a report and decide and understand where things don’t reconcile. Agents would actually look at the data and just give you the outcome: this doesn’t reconcile, and here’s why. What I see right now, in a lot of cases, is still heavy on UI — you open a report in Tableau, or maybe Looker Studio, or Excel, and just try to eyeball it. But I think these kinds of operations are getting moved away to agents, because they’re fairly deterministic, with a fairly high probability of human error ((He’s written the long version of this argument here). Also, I am tracking these trends through research and reports. Deloitte’s Tax Transformation Trends found that 46% of enterprises have already put AI-driven tax analysis into their ERP, and another 44% plan to. That’s happening in their own ERP, not in the tax vendor’s platform.
“[e-Invoice] Transmission itself is viewed as commoditised, like email.”
Paul: Interesting, because I’ve long felt the VAT reporting end game was never really a UX around a reporting product — it was the logic and authority information, callable by whatever user process was happening, SAP or Oracle or a marketplace. All you wanted was the return and a process to check and approve it. With e-invoicing, vendors are building for the next mandate — the next France, the next UAE — because the perceived value is in seeing your return compiled from your invoices as issued and reconciled against what’s transmitted. Transmission itself is viewed as commoditised, like email. So vendors are betting on the UX: housing compliance and returns data alongside e-invoicing and determination data. What’s interesting is that value might diminish as agentic workflows take over that eyeballing work.
Diyan: Yes — one change I’ve noticed is that it’s become fairly easy to build these e-invoicing integrations as a vendor now, because governments have standardised their setups via APIs, and you now have agents that can actually go and build these integrations, including handling scale. It’s no longer the complex, almost unimaginable task that somebody had to handle and that you’d pay a lot of money for. It’s genuinely getting commoditised, and I don’t think, at least in my opinion, companies will be willing to pay a lot of money for it going forward.
Paul: And I agree — vendors have rightly detected this and are moving into adjacent areas horizontally: VAT reporting, reconciliation, and so on.
Diyan: Of course, you then have all sorts of other challenges there, because VAT reporting is also master data management and data quality management, which right now is a little bit difficult for vendors to do well. But I also feel that with the advancement of AI, this area will become fairly easy to handle too. It will be very common in the next two or three years to have this as part of the package you buy from a vendor. I’m just not sure companies will be willing to pay so much for it — but we’ll see.
Can Any Vendor Own the Tax Data Layer?
Paul: One more on vendors before we move to AI. The other trend I see, from the bigger multi-product vendors, is wanting to be the data layer, the data lake — the OS for tax. On the indirect side there’s this notion of a tax data warehouse, aggregating as a byproduct of the transactional work. Can any one vendor really claim to do that, or is it too broad for a single platform to provide, and does it have to be built and operated yourself?
Diyan: I think it depends. In mid-market, there could well be demand for someone, or for such a platform, that you could hand your tax processes to — why not? But when you’re a company thinking about one of your core processes, taxation, you always have to think about what happens if there’s uncertainty. Vendors carry their own uncertainty too, in terms of business and a lot of things. So I’d say I don’t see this happening soon, just because it wouldn’t be very comfortable, at least in my opinion, to fully outsource this core process to a vendor, for many reasons. But second, I think there are some purely technological challenges to doing this, and also business challenges — we already talked about plugging tax determination, e-invoicing, or other flows into your transactions. The obvious question then is: if a company like Uber does millions of transactions, would the vendor’s engine actually be able to reliably carry that challenge successfully?
Paul: And if the answer is no, you have a problem.
Diyan: Say you outsource something — like tax document issuance. You have one of your customers, say a business that receives invoices, and some of those invoices need to be credited and reissued for various reasons — this is common. If you’ve outsourced tax operations, you have to refer that customer to the vendor’s support team. Would the vendor’s support team have the capability and the specialisation required to handle that? The support team needs to understand how the business operations of a company like Uber, or any other company, actually work in order to provide good support. And as a vendor, you have to do this at scale, for every customer — it could be Uber, it could be a bank, it could be a car company.
Paul: So it’s a business challenge to actually be able to fully be the platform.
Diyan: Right — so to me, all of these challenges are unresolved at the moment. I think vendors win more by being specialised in the components they excel at, like we discussed, rather than trying to handle all of that business complexity by being the entire platform for any one company — except maybe if you’re relatively mid-market, where these challenges are much smaller than if you’re in enterprise, let alone large enterprise like Uber, Google, or Apple.
Paul: The support point really drove it home — that scope of understanding is too much to expect from a vendor’s customer success organisation. Makes a lot of sense.
What AI Is Actually Doing in Tax Right Now
Paul: You’re very fluent in AI developments. A lot of vendor messaging is all AI-first, agents, and so on — but vendors worry their value proposition is being eroded, and people in industry worry their boss expects multi-agent systems already. So what work is AI really doing in a tax department right now, and where’s it adding value?
Diyan: I think it’s too early to say what roles AI might be replacing, because I see the conversation really being centred on roles right now. Every day the PMs are gone, and the next day they’re back. Same with tax managers — gone, back, gone, back. The more important conversation is what tasks AI is replacing, not what roles. I already see this at Uber: AI helps a lot with high-volume, deterministic tasks where the check is easy — a number below a threshold, raise an alert. Cheap for an agent to do at scale, better and more cheaply than a person. So, I can’t say AI does Uber’s tax end-to-end. It’s doing a handful of tasks that tax people were doing by hand. Besides, EY has put the share of tax function time spent on gathering and transforming data at 40 to 60%. So, I would aim AI at this layer right now. That covers generating drafts, troubleshooting, research, and preparing an initial reconciliation ahead of monthly close. I’m working on the troubleshooting piece with agents right now, and it’s showing real promise.
“The more important conversation is what tasks AI is replacing, not what roles.”
What isn’t going away is human judgment before you report. The guidance from tax authorities around the world — the IRS, HMRC, Australia, Singapore — says the same thing: if you submit something AI-prepared and it’s not accurate, you’re liable. You can’t say “AI did it.” Verification, signing your name to the filing — that’s not going away.
One thing that genuinely worries me: a lot of my basic skills came from simple tasks. Checking a spreadsheet for errors isn’t strategic work, but it builds reasoning and teaches you how things work — that foundation prepares you for the next level, acting on what the spreadsheet told you. I’m not sure how that judgment gets built into teams over the next five to ten years if the foundational tasks disappear first.
Paul: That’s spoken about a lot with AI and job replacement — it’s taking out the bottom layer. Same in tax and accounting: you cut your teeth on the simple, repeatable work to build a foundation for the harder stuff. I completely agree.
Diyan: I honestly don’t know how that resolves, or what our kids will do coming out of university — it’s concerning. There’s a phenomenon I’ve been reading about, cognitive surrender, which I’ve seen firsthand: people using AI so much they stop reasoning and just execute whatever the prompt result says. That’s dangerous in a deterministic field like finance, but personally too.
Paul: You detach from reality and just carry out instructions, because you don’t understand the process that got you there. I’m the same — I could automate certain home tasks, but I like doing them myself so I understand what I’m looking at.
Where This Goes Next
Paul: So, where do you see tax tech heading over the next couple of years?
Diyan: Well, first, everyone agrees we’re on the verge of a major acceleration. In the same Thomson Reuters survey, 39% of tax departments expect AI to be central to their operations within one to two years. The year before, the consensus answer was three to five.
Now look at how the same departments describe their own maturity. The share calling themselves chaotic or reactive went up, from 57% to 64%. The proactive group shrank, from 35% to 29%. So the expectation curve is going up while the readiness curve is going down. AI is arriving into tax departments that are less organised than they were two years ago, not more — and AI doesn’t fix a messy process, it runs it faster. Nobody is telling that story, because it doesn’t sell anything.
I think that’s also the honest explanation for the dissatisfaction number I mentioned earlier. It isn’t only that the products underdelivered. A lot of them were installed on top of data and processes that weren’t ready.
“AI is arriving into tax departments that got less mature, not more.”
The compliance layer — vendor or internal — will become more commoditised because it will be easier to build. The teams you currently need for government invoicing integrations will probably shrink to a third of the size within a couple of years, and it won’t stay a competitive advantage for one company. Outside jurisdictions requiring a certified provider, mid-market and above will find it fairly easy to integrate directly with governments. That puts real pressure on pricing. I also suspect a move toward success-based pricing — per successful filing or outcome rather than per seat or transaction. Sit down with an LLM and you could spend a lot of time and money accomplishing a task or accomplishing no task at all, which I think is one of the risks.
Paul: Exactly, accomplishing nothing and still spending money.
Diyan: Gartner puts at least 40% of enterprise SaaS spend on usage, agent, or outcome-based pricing by 2030. Even the model providers are moving in this direction. I wouldn’t be surprised if tax tech customers start asking for the same: pay per successful VAT return, or per pound recovered.
I also think a new product category is coming: a layer around defensibility and audit trails — a tax-tech harness. With AI you need robust, specialised audit trails, and I don’t think Anthropic or OpenAI can build those for every industry using their models. There’s room for companies that specialise in exactly that.
On the human side, a lot of roles will keep moving upstream, away from routine work toward strategic work and orchestration.
Paul: Though it’s hard to do orchestration and strategy well without having gone through the basics.
Diyan: You have to be in the trenches and start from there, rather than trying to be on the hill conducting the battle when you’ve never had that experience.
Advice for Building a Career in Tax Tech
Paul: Do you have any advice for people trying to navigate their careers in this industry over the next few years?
Diyan: Beyond getting experience upstream, into orchestration rather than basic operations, get very proficient with the data layer — that matters regardless of which tools or LLMs come and go. If you don’t understand the data model, how to enforce data quality, how to connect it to the reporting layer, you’ll struggle. That’s a genuinely competitive skill right now.
“You have to be in the trenches and start from there, rather than trying to be on the hill conducting the battle when you’ve never had that experience.”
I’d also advise moving toward building rather than process. Building something that solves a problem is valued more right now than managing teams or producing reports, because the process itself, and who executes it, is going to change.
And get good at working with probabilistic systems — the tools with AI built in. A lot of these can’t give you a fully certain outcome; you’re always dealing with probability. If you ask an AI to do a reconciliation, the real question is whether the outcome is correct with high confidence, and judging that means understanding these systems well enough to set the right threshold: high confidence, use it as-is; low confidence, a human needs to look.
Paul: Right now, we’re the algorithm, in a sense — you check something and decide it’s not correct without needing to label your own confidence. When an agent does the checking, you’re on the outside trying to work out if it’s telling the truth or just falsely confident.
Diyan: And that’s a whole new area for everyone to learn. Understanding the tools and how they work — that’s really the point.
Paul: That’s been brilliant, thank you. Last thing — a quick plug for your Substack. What can people expect to see from you there?
Diyan: I generally write about the challenges I face every day dealing with tax, but also try to think strategically about where it will be in a couple of years and how it might get solved — it’s a way for me to understand how things are developing. If people want to know more about doing tax at really large scale, that’s the place to look.
Want to read more, you can speak to Diyan here and I highly recommend his substack, which I’ve linked here amd below:
A selection of of opportunities to connect in person and interact online over the next few weeks.
SEPTEMBER 2026
Shared Services & Outsourcing Week 2026 — Autumn (Conference)
SSON — Shared Services & Outsourcing Network | 14–17 September 2026 | San Diego, CA
SSON’s autumn flagship conference covering finance, tax, HR, and IT shared services transformation, with a focus on AI adoption, automation, and the future of the GBS operating model.
Tax Should Be at the Table from Day One: An S/4HANA & Indirect Tax Leadership Event (Roundtable)
EY / Meridian / Jaguar Land Rover / SAP | 16 September 2026, 2:30–5:45pm | London Bridge Office, London, UK
An exclusive in-person leadership session exploring why tax should be involved from the outset of an S/4HANA programme, the role of accurate data in indirect tax transformation, the latest SAP innovations in this space, and Jaguar Land Rover's own S/4HANA tax determination story. Designed for indirect tax leaders, tax technology and transformation leaders, and project leads on tax technology or S/4HANA programmes. Free to attend; registration required — contact Ruby Buckland directly.
Event Page → (no public registration link — contact Ruby Buckland, EY via LinkedIn)
Avalara CRUSH 2026 (Conference)
Avalara | 22–24 September 2026 | Fort Lauderdale, FL
Avalara’s premier annual conference returns as agentic AI reshapes tax and compliance. A key gathering for finance, tax, and technology professionals exploring the future of automated, AI-powered global tax compliance — with product deep-dives, partner sessions, and peer networking.
E-Invoicing Exchange Summit 2026 (Conference)
E-Invoicing Exchange | 30 September – 2 October 2026 | Hotel MOA Berlin, Berlin, Germany
The leading independent e-invoicing industry event returns to Berlin, bringing together enterprises, tax authorities, and technology providers to share insights on cross-border interoperability, regulatory readiness, and the growing impact of AI on e-invoicing and tax processes.
OCTOBER 2026
Join PwC and Meridian to Discuss Navigating the Future of Tax Compliance (Roundtable)
PwC / Meridian Global Services | 8 October 2026, 13:30–17:30 | PwC Amsterdam Offices, Thomas R. Malthusstraat 5, Amsterdam, Netherlands
An in-person roundtable bringing together finance, tax, and IT leaders to discuss the future of tax compliance, indirect tax automation, and readiness for evolving mandates.
Power of 3: PwC, SAP & Vertex (Roundtable)
PwC / SAP / Vertex | 15 October 2026 | TBC
A joint client event from PwC, SAP, and Vertex on e-invoicing, SAP transformation, and tax technology, flagged by PwC’s Ron Sperling as part of a run of autumn 2026 events. Private/invite-only — no public registration page found; details expected closer to the date.
TEI Annual Conference 2026 (Conference)
TEI — Tax Executives Institute | 21 October 2026 | Grand Hyatt Nashville, Nashville, TN
TEI’s flagship annual conference for senior in-house tax professionals, featuring high-level sessions on federal, state, and international tax developments, technology, and the evolving role of the corporate tax function.
5th Annual VAT Compliance and Indirect Tax Forum 2026 — ITX (Conference)
Amistat Group | 21–22 October 2026 | Van der Valk Hotel, Brussels, Belgium
Over 20 senior speakers across 20 high-level practical sessions on VAT compliance, AI in tax technology, and e-invoicing, plus 6+ hours of dedicated networking. Sponsored by Blue dot, Fintua, Meridian, 360WEDO, and VATabout.
IVA Autumn Conference 2026 (Conference)
International VAT Association (IVA) | 22–23 October 2026 | Marseille, France
The IVA’s flagship autumn gathering brings together VAT professionals, businesses, tax authorities, and international organisations from around the world for one of Europe’s leading VAT events. Full agenda and speakers to be announced closer to the date.
ITR AI in Tax Forum 2026 — USA (Conference)
International Tax Review | 26 October 2026 | New York, USA
ITR’s dedicated AI in Tax Forum returns to the US, examining how artificial intelligence is moving from early promise to everyday reality across direct and indirect tax functions — with senior in-house perspectives on implementation, governance, and what’s next.
E-Rechnungs-Gipfel 2026 — Repeat Edition (Conference)
Vereon AG / E-Invoicing Exchange Summit | 26–27 October 2026 | Frankfurt am Main, Germany
A second Frankfurt edition of Germany’s e-invoicing summit, added after the June Berlin edition sold out — covering XRechnung, ZUGFeRD, Peppol and EN16931 compliance ahead of the January 2027 mandate deadline.
*any organisers or events I’ve missed? please let me know.
A curated selection of blogs, white-papers and on demand content published by multiple organisartions across the landscape, organised into a themed learning path.
SEPTEMBER 2026
E-Invoicing, Direct Tax, Pillar Two & Synthesis
September covers the live mandate wave — France’s CTC goes mandatory this month — alongside Pillar Two post-filing analysis, corporate tax provision, and a synthesis capstone. Each week maintains the cross-theme mix, combining e-invoicing, direct tax, and operational content.
Week 1 · 7–11 September
The Live Mandate Wave: France, Slovakia, CTC Foundations & the Global Picture
📖Continuous Transaction Controls: The Future of Compliance Sovos12–15 min
📖Global VAT Guide: July 2026 VATupdate / Fintua 10–15 min
📖Sovos TaxScapes Q1 2026: France CTC Pilot, KSeF & Norway Acceleration Sovos 12–15 min
📖5 Things We Can Learn from Belgium’s 2026 E-Invoicing Mandate Innovate Tax 8–10 min
🎥E-Invoicing Trends and Obligations: 2026 and Beyond (feat. Forrester) Comarch / Forrester 60 min
🎥Countdown to Slovakia 2027: Preparing for Mandatory E-Invoicing and Digital Reporting Sovos 45–60 min
Week total: 4 articles + 2 webinars · ~147–175 min (~2.5 hrs)
Week 2 · 14–18 September
ViDA, Platform Architecture & Emerging Markets
📖What is ViDA? VAT in the Digital Age Initiative Q&APagero (Thomson Reuters) 12–15 min
📖Streamline the Future #6: Reporting Built for Global E-Invoicing Operations Comarch 8–10 min
📖Brazil 2026 Tax Reform: Key E-Invoicing Changes Fonoa 10–12 min
📖Leading the Charge: E-Invoicing as the Cornerstone of Future Compliance Vertex Inc. 10–12 min
📖E-Invoicing Transformation: How to Get It Right Pagero (Thomson Reuters) 10–12 min
📖E-Invoicing in Norway and Latest European VAT Updates Marosa VAT 8–10 min
🎥E-Invoicing in Eastern Europe: KSeF, ViDA, Romania, Hungary & BeyondP agero (Thomson Reuters) 45 min
Week total: 2 articles + 1 webinar · ~103–116 min (~1.75 hrs)
Week 3 · 21–25 September
Pillar Two, GIR Filing & the Side-by-Side Package
📖Orbitax Launches Global Pillar Two Compliance Accelerator Orbitax 10–12 min
📖Global Minimum Tax and the Data Management Dilemma Thomson Reuters / Orbitax 10–12 min
📖OECD Side-by-Side Package: Relief for US Multinationals RSM US 12–15 min
📖The New Pillar Two Framework: Unboxing the Side-by-Side Package Alvarez & Marsal 15–18 min
🎥Pillar Two Compliance: Grant Thornton & Orbitax Strategies Orbitax / Grant Thornton 60 min · CPE
🎥Seamless Tax Data Integration: From Any System to Pillar Two Compliance Orbitax / Deloitte 45–60 min
Week total: 4 articles + 2 webinars · ~152–177 min (~2.5 hrs)
Week 4· 28 September – 2 October (Capstone)
Provision, Maturity, US Tax Landscape & Full Synthesis
📖QDMTT: Stay Ahead of the Global Minimum Tax Curve Orbitax (Thomson Reuters) 12–15 min
📖How to Build a Winning Indirect Tax Maturity Roadmap Fonoa 12–15 min
📖The Future of Indirect Tax: 3 Traits Every Modern Tax Team Needs Fonoa 8–10 min
📖2025 Tax Recap & 2026 Preview: OBBBA Compliance UpdatesWolters Kluwer / CCH 8–10 min
📖2025 Tax Recap and 2026 Preview for Accounting Firms Wolters Kluwer / CCH 10–12 min
📖AI-Enabled Tax Transformation Deloitte Global 20–25 min
🎥Taking Corporate Tax Management Beyond Provision with Longview insightsoftware / International Tax Review 60 min
Week total: 6 articles + 1 webinar · ~130–147 min (~2.25 hrs)
September total: 20 articles + 6 webinars = 26 resources · ~532–615 min (~8.5–10 hrs)
*any cool content I’ve missed? please let me know.
A selection of open roles across tax tech vendors and tax advisory/consulting businesses who are involved in tax technology.
In house roles are provided courtesy of the smart people at https://taxjobs.ai
Use the column headers to sort, or the search function and don’t forget to navigate all pages!
*I do this using an AI agent and due to the volume, I don’t check every link, so please let me know if any of these don’t work or have disappeared when you follow them.
Want to go deeper? Let’s chat
For Buyers - bespoke vendor analysis, comparisons, tailored market research and vendor selection
For Vendors - Go To Market analysis, strategy and execution support, interim leadership
Click on the image below
