The 12 questions
Q1Total room nights (rooms × nights)?
<50 · 50–200 · 200–500 · >500
Q2Average daily rate per room (€)?
<150 · 150–300 · 300–500 · >500
Q3Group F&B contracted spend (€)?
<5k · 5–25k · 25–100k · >100k
Q4% of attendees non-resident in the event country?
0–10% · 10–30% · 30–60% · >60%
Q5Is the buyer an EU-VAT-registered company recovering input VAT?
Yes · No · Unsure (verify with finance before scoring)
Q6Who is the legal payer for rooms?
Sponsoring company · Association (members pay) · Attendees themselves
Q7How many cost centres need to be billed separately?
1 · 2–4 · >4 (sub-folio architecture)
Q8Likelihood of post-event billing disputes (re-charges, banquet variance)?
Low · Medium · High
Q9Default payment method on master?
Corporate card · Wire / direct bill · Mixed
Q10Has your tax team flagged benefit-in-kind exposure on this trip?
No · Possibly · Yes — high risk
Q11Primary event country (drives VAT regime)?
Germany (UStG §14) · France (CGI 289) · Other EU · UK · Non-EU
Q12Will any attendees be billed for travel/lodging outside the master event window?
No · Yes — minor · Yes — significant
Scoring rubric
Add or subtract per the table. Sum the score; map to the recommendation below.
| Signal | Δ score | Why |
|---|
| Q5 = Yes (EU VAT recovery) | +2 | Art. 226 invoice easier to obtain via master |
| Q4 ≥ 30% non-resident | +2 | Cross-border refund — consolidate filing |
| Q6 = Sponsoring company | +2 | Payer entity aligns with master |
| Q6 = Association (members pay) | −3 | Structural mismatch on rooms |
| Q6 = Attendees pay own way | −4 | Master on rooms wrong by definition |
| Q8 = High dispute risk | +2 | Master gives withholding lever |
| Q9 = Wire / direct bill | +1 | Surcharge avoidance — full master upside |
| Q9 = Corporate card | −1 | 2.5% leakage unless waiver negotiated |
| Q10 = Yes (BIK high risk) | −3 | Individual isolates exposure to attendee |
| Q7 > 4 cost centres | −1 | PMS split limits — hybrid pragmatic |
| Q1 ≥ 200 nights AND Q5=Yes | +1 | Operational case for master strong |
| Q1 < 50 AND Q6 ≠ Sponsoring | −2 | Small attendee-funded — individual simpler |
Map your score: ≥ +4 → Master · −1 to +3 → Hybrid · ≤ −2 → Individual
MASTER
Master + direct bill
One Art. 226 invoice. Buyer holds dispute leverage. Wire on Net 30 eliminates 1.8–3.2% surcharge.
HYBRID
Group items on master
F&B, meeting space, A/V on master; rooms individual. Most pragmatic for mid-size, mixed-payer events.
INDIVIDUAL
Attendees settle rooms
Master limited to meeting space + banquet. Use when attendees are members, BIK risk is high, or recovery target is zero.
EU VAT compliance checklist (request from hotel pre-event)
- Folio output will list buyer legal entity and buyer VAT ID (not booking-contact name).
- Sequential invoice number on the master invoice.
- Itemised supply description with VAT rate per rate band (accommodation, F&B, A/V).
- Final invoice issued within 10 business days of folio close.
- Currency of invoice matches buyer's accounting currency or is explicitly converted with a documented rate.
- Card surcharge line zero or waived in contract (if wire / direct bill).
EU Directive 2006/112/EC Art. 226 · DE: UStG §14 · FR: CGI Art. 289
Reconciliation checklist (within 5 business days of folio close)
- Room-night count vs contracted block (attrition trigger check).
- Group rate applied to all in-block room nights — no walk-up creep.
- Group F&B headcount vs guaranteed numbers; banquet checks signed on-site.
- A/V usage vs contracted hours; labour breaks itemised, not lumped.
- Meeting-space room rental vs contracted; cancelled rooms not invoiced.
- VAT content compliance — Art. 226 / UStG §14 / CGI Art. 289 fields present.
- Card surcharge line zero or waived per contract.
- Out-of-window charges routed off-master per agreement.
- Disputed lines raised in writing within the contract's dispute window (typically 30 days).