This is how contracting
works in Visualnet

By opening the Procurement File in Adobe Acrobat Reader, the «Signatures» panel automatically displays the qualified signature of the issuer and the qualified timestamp issued by the FNMT-RCM TSA. The verification is mathematical and is performed automatically by Reader when the document is opened, without the reader needing any technical knowledge or supplementary software. The certificate chain of the timestamp is validated against the European Trusted List registered under the eIDAS Regulation.

The first page of the Procurement File is designed precisely for that situation: it identifies what the document is, the regulation that backs it, and how to verify its qualified signature in Adobe Acrobat Reader without additional software. If the inspector requires complementary technical validation, the Procurement File includes a documentary validation support channel they may contact.

The certificate chain of the qualified timestamp can be verified independently by any authority through the European Trusted List registered under the eIDAS Regulation. The verification is mathematical and reproducible.

No. No technology platform and no professional advisor can guarantee the outcome of a specific administrative procedure. What the Procurement File guarantees, under the eIDAS Regulation, is the evidentiary integrity of the documented procurement process: the authenticity of the document, the immutability of the audit trail and the traceability of the process.

The final qualification of the expenditure by the authority depends on additional factors — the quality of the commercial documentation, the correlation of the expense with economic activity, the interpretative criterion of the inspector — that exceed the scope of the Procurement File and that each production company’s tax advisor evaluates in its specific context.

Yes. The Procurement File is electronically signed with a qualified FNMT-RCM seal and a qualified timestamp, conforming to the PAdES-B-LTA profile of Regulation (EU) 910/2014. Article 25.2 of that Regulation establishes that a qualified electronic signature with a qualified seal has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature in any procedure before the Public Administration or the ordinary jurisdiction of any Member State of the European Union, without the need for additional expert evidence of its authenticity or integrity.

The NISR 4400 report issued by a ROAC-registered auditor is an optional additional layer, not a requirement for the Procurement File to deploy its own probative value.

No. The Procurement File documents the competitive procurement process — which suppliers were invited, which bids were received, how each request was awarded. The invoice of the awarded supplier, the service contract and the bank payment receipt remain, under the Spanish Invoicing Regulation (Royal Decree 1619/2012) and Article 106 of the General Tax Law, the mandatory commercial documentation that the production company must keep.

The Procurement File complements that support with evidentiary documentation of the procurement process that gave rise to the invoice — it does not replace it.

The Procurement File is provided as documentary evidence of the procurement process, alongside the standard tax documentation that the inspection has required — invoices, contracts, payment receipts, accounting books. Its added value emerges when the inspection raises substantive questions: whether there was a competitive process, whether the price reflects the market, whether transactions with related parties were conducted at arm’s length, or whether the basis of the Article 36 LIS deduction is built on auditable eligible costs.

The first page of the Procurement File itself identifies the document, its probative value under Regulation (EU) 910/2014, and the instructions for verifying the electronic signature for the inspector.

Yes. The basis of the deductions under Article 36.1 LIS (Spanish Film & TV production) and Article 36.2 LIS (tax rebate for international production) requires evidence that the eligible costs were determined through a documented and auditable supplier selection process. The Procurement File covers that requirement exactly: it identifies the universe of eligible suppliers invited, the bids received, the award criteria and the final outcome, all with qualified timestamping and immutable traceability through chained SHA-256 hashes.

The production company also keeps the standard commercial documentation — invoice, contract, payment receipt — on which the effective amount of the deduction is calculated.

It is one of the cases in which the Procurement File reaches its highest probative value. Article 18 LIS requires that transactions between related parties be valued at arm’s length, and the AEAT may require documentary evidence that the price actually paid was formed under those conditions.

The Procurement File evidences that the related supplier was invited on equal terms alongside the full set of eligible suppliers in the directory for the activity and geographic area required, that the awarded price was contrasted against the competitive bids received, and that the outcome was cryptographically sealed at closing. Order ECD/2784/2015 specifically requires, in its Article 3, three bids for expenditure on related companies as a condition of the special ROAC report before the ICAA — a requirement that the Procurement File covers by construction.

In cases where the regulation itself expressly requires it — the special report recognising the cost of the film before the ICAA under Order ECD/2784/2015 (as amended by Order CUD/553/2023), certifications under Article 39.7 LIS for the assignment of the deduction to the financier (including AIE structures), equivalent cases under the foral regimes of the Basque Country and Navarre and under the Canary Islands REF —, or when the production company values adding a layer of independent professional validation on top of the technical substrate of the Procurement File.

In those cases, the Procurement File acts as the underlying documentation on which the audit firm applies the previously agreed procedures in accordance with NISR 4400 (the International Standard on Related Services for Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagements). The two documents are cumulative, not alternative.

Yes. The Procurement File is designed to be a cross-cutting evidentiary instrument: the same sealed document simultaneously covers four distinct regulatory fronts without any additional documentary reconstruction — the basis of the Article 36 LIS deduction before the AEAT, certifications under Article 39.7 LIS for the assignment of the deduction to the financier (including AIE structures), the special ROAC report before the ICAA under Order ECD/2784/2015, and equivalent files under foral regimes and the Canary Islands REF.

The Use Limitation section of the Procurement File itself delimits the circle of authorised recipients — auditors, financiers, tax authorities and administrative bodies with a legitimate interest. The multi-jurisdictional regulatory map on this same page develops each of those fronts.

Yes. The qualified signature of the Procurement File under Regulation (EU) 910/2014 (eIDAS) retains recognition in the United Kingdom after Brexit through the Electronic Identification and Trust Services for Electronic Transactions Regulations 2016 — incorporated into UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and known as the UK eIDAS Regulations —, which preserves the functional equivalence of the Qualified Trust Service Providers of the European Trusted List. HMRC and the Serious Fraud Office recognise the Procurement File as documentary evidence with presumed authenticity and integrity, without the need for complementary expert evidence.

The NISR 4400 report issued by a ROAC-registered auditor on the Procurement File is an additional professional layer where applicable — it is not a requirement for the document to deploy its own probative value.

Yes. The Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC), introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 and in force since 1 January 2024, replaces and unifies Film Tax Relief, High-End Television Tax Relief, Animation Tax Relief and Children’s Television Tax Relief into a single expenditure credit regime administered by HMRC. To access the credit, at least 80% of core expenditure must be used or consumed in the United Kingdom and at market price, and the production must pass the BFI Cultural Test under Schedule 1 of the Films Act 1985.

The Procurement File documents line by line the suppliers invited, the bids received and the awarded price, with verifiable coverage of the eligible UK market for each activity. It is the documentary evidence on which HMRC can examine the qualifying spend declared by the Production Company and on which the BFI can examine the percentage of expenditure that is effectively British when auditing the cultural qualification.

Section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 establishes strict corporate liability: the organisation is responsible for the bribery committed by its associated persons — defined in Section 8 as any person who performs services for the organisation, including employees, agents, subsidiaries and co-producers — even if it had no direct knowledge of the conduct, unless it can demonstrate that it had adequate procedures in place designed to prevent it. The Ministry of Justice Guidance on Adequate Procedures (March 2011) identifies six guiding principles: proportionate procedures, top-level commitment, risk assessment, due diligence, communication & training, monitoring & review.

The Procurement File directly covers four of the six principles over the Film & TV procurement domain: proportionate procedures (a structured, non-discretionary process), risk assessment (verifiable coverage of 100% of the eligible market), due diligence (verification of each supplier in the directory before invitation) and monitoring (a chained, immutable SHA-256 audit trail, independently verifiable). When there is a foreign co-producer — an associated person by construction —, the Procurement File extends that procedural coverage to the foreign element of the co-production. It is documentary support for an adequate procedures defence defensible before the Serious Fraud Office.

The United Kingdom is the primary service production destination for the major US studios, with over £5.5 billion in annual inward investment. When a UK production acts as service producer for a US listed studio, its procurement decisions flow simultaneously to four distinct regulatory regimes: the Serious Fraud Office under the Bribery Act for adequate procedures over the contracting chain itself, the IRS under IRC §482 if there are related entities, the DOJ under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for the service producer’s conduct as an associated person of the studio, and the SEC through the SOX §302 and §404 certifications of the listed studio’s CFO.

The Procurement File, with own probative value under Art. 25.2 eIDAS and cross-border recognition under the UK eIDAS Regulations in the United Kingdom and the ESIGN Act/UETA in the United States, configures a single documentary support defensible simultaneously before all four regimes — adequate procedures before the SFO, arm’s length pricing before the IRS, internal accounting controls under FCPA, and the internal control record that the US CFO integrates into their SOX certification. The multi-jurisdictional regulatory map on this same page develops each of those fronts.

The Procurement File is provided as complementary documentary evidence alongside the standard commercial documentation — invoices, contracts, payment records, qualifying expenditure certifications — that HMRC or the BFI requires in a compliance check or cultural review. Its added value emerges when the inspector raises substantive questions about the procurement process: whether the procurement was competitive, whether the prices reflect real UK market rates for the activity and shooting dates, whether the non-UK suppliers included were necessary due to the absence of a qualified local equivalent, or whether the basis of the expenditure credit is built on auditable costs.

The first page of the Procurement File itself identifies the document, its probative value under Regulation (EU) 910/2014 recognised by the UK eIDAS Regulation 2016, and the instructions for verifying the qualified signature in Adobe Acrobat Reader without additional software. If the inspection requires complementary technical validation, the Procurement File includes a documentary validation support channel they may contact.

When the US listed financing studio requests a layer of independent professional validation integrable into its SOX §404 due diligence. When a British co-producer or financier requires additional professional endorsement of the documentary substrate. When the UK production itself values adding that layer for internal governance. In those cases, the Procurement File acts as the underlying documentation on which the audit firm applies the previously agreed procedures in accordance with NISR 4400 — the Spanish adoption by the ICAC of the International Standard on Related Services 4400 (ISRS 4400) issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB).

NISR 4400 / ISRS 4400 is an international standard recognised by the Big Four firms (PwC, Deloitte, EY, KPMG) in their work in the United Kingdom and accepted as documentary support by HMRC, the BFI and the Serious Fraud Office in inspection proceedings. The two documents are cumulative, not alternative — the Procurement File retains its own probative value even if the NISR 4400 report is not issued; the report adds the auditor’s professional responsibility tier when the operation or end client justifies it.

Yes. The qualified signature under Regulation (EU) 910/2014 (eIDAS) enjoys cross-border recognition in US federal and state proceedings through the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN Act, 15 U.S.C. §7001 et seq.) and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), adopted by forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Both frameworks establish that no electronic signature or record may be rejected solely because of its electronic form if it meets the guarantees of authenticity, integrity and attribution that the eIDAS qualified signature provides.

The authenticity and integrity of the Procurement File are verifiable by any IRS, DOJ, SEC or state film office auditor through the Adobe Acrobat Reader signature panel, without additional software. The NISR 4400 report issued by a ROAC-registered auditor is an additional professional layer where applicable — it is not a requirement for the document to deploy its probative value.

Yes, and it is one of the cases in which the Procurement File reaches its highest probative value. IRC §482 authorises the IRS to reallocate income, deductions, credits and analogous items between controlled taxpayers when the prices agreed are not at arm’s length. The Treasury regulations (Treas. Reg. §1.482-1 and following) and the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines establish the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method (CUP) as the most direct where there is a comparable open market — exactly the case of the Film & TV technical services procurement documented in the Procurement File.

The Procurement File evidences that comparability: it identifies the universe of eligible independent suppliers invited, the bids received under real market conditions, and the relative position of the price awarded to the related supplier within the market range. It is documentary support defensible under the CUP method before an IRS Examination or as contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation under IRC §6662(e) — with effects on the 20% to 40% penalty protection on the transfer pricing adjustment.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA, 1977) imposes two distinct types of obligations on issuers listed in US markets and on their subsidiaries and related entities. The anti-bribery provisions (15 U.S.C. §§78dd-1, 78dd-2, 78dd-3) prohibit payments to foreign officials with corrupt intent. The accounting provisions (15 U.S.C. §78m(b)(2)) require maintaining books, records and accounts that reflect, in reasonable detail and with reasonable fidelity, the transactions and dispositions of assets of the issuer, and maintaining a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the integrity of the accounting records.

The Procurement File, with a chained immutable SHA-256 audit trail and an eIDAS qualified signature, configures precisely that internal accounting control over the Film & TV procurement domain: verifiable coverage of 100% of the eligible market, bids registered in a closed environment, immutable award with documented justification when the price exceeds the market average. It is documentary support defensible before the DOJ and the SEC in an FCPA enforcement action — both in the books and records dimension and in the procedural due diligence that the DOJ assesses under the Resource Guide to the U.S. FCPA (DOJ/SEC, 2nd ed. 2020) and the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs criteria.

Yes. Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. §7241) requires that the CEO and CFO of listed companies personally certify, in each quarterly report (Form 10-Q) and annual report (Form 10-K), the accuracy of the financial statements and the sufficiency of the Internal Control over Financial Reporting (ICFR) system. Section 404 (15 U.S.C. §7262) adds a formal assessment of the effectiveness of the ICFR by management, audited by an independent auditor registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) under Auditing Standard AS 2201.

When a Film or TV production represents a material item in the financial statements of the issuer — typical in large feature productions and premium series —, the procurement of technical services is a direct input of the ICFR. The Procurement File, generated automatically without discretionary intervention, with an immutable audit trail independently verifiable and an eIDAS qualified signature recognised under the ESIGN Act/UETA, configures an automated internal control integrable into the issuer’s ICFR system and verifiable by the PCAOB auditor in their attestation engagement.

The FCPA applies issuer liability for the conduct of agents, intermediaries, joint venture partners, consultants and other third parties when the issuer had knowledge of the conduct — knowledge that expressly includes, under the definition of §78dd-1(f)(2)(A), conscious disregard and willful blindness. The DOJ and the SEC have brought FCPA enforcement actions against issuers for above-market payments made by their joint venture partners in foreign markets, including cases in the entertainment industry.

The available procedural defence is to demonstrate due diligence over the partner and procedural controls over the joint venture’s procurement decisions. The Procurement File, signed at the project level with all of the co-producer’s procurement decisions included — suppliers invited, bids received, award with justification —, documents that procedural coverage with Art. 25.2 eIDAS probative value recognisable under the ESIGN Act/UETA. The multi-jurisdictional regulatory map on this same page develops the escalation chain when there is transatlantic financing or co-production.

The state tax credit programs — Georgia Film Tax Credit (O.C.G.A. §48-7-40.26), California Film & Television Tax Credit Program (Revenue and Taxation Code §17053.98 et seq.), New York State Film Production Tax Credit (Tax Law §24), Louisiana Motion Picture Production Tax Credit (La. R.S. 47:6007), New Mexico Film Production Tax Credit (NMSA 1978 §7-2F-1 et seq.), Illinois Film Production Services Tax Credit and more than twenty-three additional programs — are administered by the respective state film offices or departments of revenue, with eligibility criteria, qualifying expenditure caps and audit procedures that vary state by state.

What all the programs share is the requirement of a documented competitive process and arm’s length pricing on the qualifying spend. The state audit is performed, in the majority of programs, by a CPA registered in the corresponding state — frequently Big Four or regional firms — who examines the procurement documentation on which the credit is based. The Procurement File provides the homogeneous documentary support on which the state CPA can execute fieldwork, with the same evidentiary structure regardless of the state of filming.

The Procurement File is provided as complementary documentary evidence alongside the standard tax and accounting documentation that the inspection has required — Form 1120 schedules, transfer pricing documentation under IRC §6662(e), books and records under §13(b)(2)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act, qualifying expenditure statements of the corresponding state program. Its added value emerges when the inspection raises substantive questions about the procurement process: whether there was competitive procurement, whether prices reflect real market rates, whether transactions with related parties were documented contemporaneously, or whether the procurement decisions respond to automated internal controls.

The first page of the Procurement File itself identifies the document, its probative value under Regulation (EU) 910/2014 with cross-border recognition under the ESIGN Act and UETA, and the instructions for verifying the qualified signature in Adobe Acrobat Reader without additional software. If the inspection requires complementary technical validation, the Procurement File includes a documentary validation support channel they may contact.

When the listed financing studio integrates the report into its SOX §404 assessment as evidence of internal control audited by a professional third party. When a transfer between related entities requires transfer pricing documentation under IRC §6662(e) and the issuer prefers anticipated professional endorsement on the CUP methodology applied. When a state film office requests an auditor’s report additional to the Procurement File as support for the state audit of qualifying expenditure. In those cases, the Procurement File acts as the underlying documentation on which the audit firm applies the previously agreed procedures in accordance with NISR 4400 — the Spanish adoption by the ICAC of the International Standard on Related Services 4400 (ISRS 4400) issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB).

The ISRS 4400 standard is functionally equivalent to the US AT-C 215 (Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements No. 19, Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagements, issued by the AICPA Auditing Standards Board) — both are agreed-upon procedures engagements in which the auditor reports factual findings on previously agreed procedures, without issuing an assurance opinion. The Big Four firms (PwC, Deloitte, EY, KPMG) recognise both standards as interchangeable in their international work. The two documents are cumulative, not alternative — the Procurement File retains its own probative value even if the NISR 4400 report is not issued; the report adds the auditor’s professional responsibility tier when the operation or end client justifies it.