The return to EET must be a new beginning, not a repetition of old mistakes.

The new government of Andrej Babiš announces that in 2027, entrepreneurs could again face the obligation to electronically record cash sales. Compared to the original form, the second-generation EET is to have a simpler form, a digitized form and a lower burden for small entrepreneurs. Under what conditions can a number of errors of the original system be corrected?

The original system of electronic sales records was strongly politicized from the beginning, which fundamentally undermined its stability and lifespan. At that time, criticism focused mainly on too broad a scope, incomplete legislation and unnecessary administrative complications, which later had to be modified by methodologies and often by court decisions.

A return to sales records does not have to be a return to a divided company and disputes, but an opportunity to avoid EET 1.0 errors and create a system that will be a real benefit. So far, there have been promises that the new version will be fully digital, intuitive, less burdensome, and that it will focus especially on those sectors that have long had the highest share of the shadow economy.

A prerequisite for a quality system is primarily legal certainty. Entrepreneurs need a stable and predictable environment, not a project that will be cancelled again with the next government. It is therefore essential that key parameters are agreed across the political spectrum and that legislation goes through a proper process, including consultations with experts. This is the only way to prevent a situation where a simple law is extinguished by dozens of pages of additional instructions, as we have witnessed in the past.

Equally important is real simplification. This does not mean paper records or the mandatory sending of summaries every five days, but functional digital tools, the ability to temporarily record offline and clearly defined intervals when data is sent to the state. If the state provides a safe and free mobile application, many fears will be avoided, especially among small entrepreneurs. The recorded data should be used exclusively for the fulfilment of the purpose of the Act.

There is a risk of an even greater shortage of craftsmen

A smart definition of sectors should also be part of modern EET 2.0. The involvement of sectors where the records will bring real benefits is more rational than the effort to reach all entrepreneurs across the board, regardless of the specifics of their activities. It is also necessary to consider that, for example, there are fewer and fewer craftsmen, and new responsibilities may mean that the older generation will literally put the hammer on the nail and retire.

However, we know for sure that the largest grey area for cash payments persists for non-VAT payers and in the retail and hospitality sectors, while large entrepreneurs, regardless of the industry, do not have any major problem with reporting. In any case, exceptions in the sector involved should be limited – they always distort the market.

Ignoring the Financial Administration is a warning sign

The presented intentions look promising in many respects, but we do not yet know the specific parameters of EET 2.0. According to public statements by the head of the Financial Administration, the project was not consulted with the administration, which is worrying. It is the Financial Administration that will be the key operator of the system, and if it is not involved from the beginning, there is a risk of repeating the mistakes of the first EET, when legislation was created under time pressure and without sufficient interconnection with practice.

So far, we know that a mobile application is to be created, that tax reliefs or discounts are being considered as positive motivations, and that the new EET will take into account the smallest entrepreneurs. How the system will be set up, what the reporting intervals will be, who exactly will be involved and what the administrative complexity will be, all of this remains unclear for now.

If EET 2.0 is to succeed, it must be based on real data, open debate and a long-term strategy. The legislative chaos and political rivalry that accompanied the first version must not be repeated. The new EET should bring fairer business conditions and strengthen competition with quality instead of price. At the same time, it is necessary to realistically explain what the system can bring.

Straightening out the market environment is a legitimate goal, but one cannot promise a thirty-billion-euro collection without a thorough analysis. EET alone will not save the economy, but it can be an important tool if it is created deliberately. Future success therefore depends on professional management of preparations, respect for professional dialogue and a willingness not to repeat the mistakes of the past. If it is created in a hurry, it will become just another chapter in the history of legislative experiments that burden entrepreneurs rather than motivate them.