VAT is a recurring topic on the forum, but have not yet seen a topic on the reverse charge mechanism.
In Switzerland, like in EU countries, there is a so-called reverse charge mechanism where, when you acquire a service from abroad,
this service is first added to the taxes that need to be paid (field 382 in the Swiss VAT forms) and in turn
the same VAT amount can be deducted (field 405 in the Swiss VAT forms).
From an accounting perspective, there is both input VAT (field 405) and output VAT (382), so a simple accounting entry would be (assuming an accounts payable invoice for a foreign software subscription like Manager Cloud):
@Davide’s dissatisfaction with the scheme has its origins, I believe, in his extensive use of custom reports, where it may be desirable in some cases to show both halves of offsetting transactions to the general ledger to be compliant with local accounting practices. For most users, this is not an issue, however. You should not take his comments to suggest the built-in reporting gives incorrect results, only that implementation details make some of the custom reporting he wants to do impractical. The built-in reports, in fact, do include both the sales and purchase attributes of reverse charge VAT, as shown in the Guide. What @Davide wants are line item details to make his custom reporting more suitable for his needs.
I certainly do not intend to start an argument about this. But it is necessary to point out that the transactions you want, saying they are necessary under Italian law, are not listed because they do not exist in the database. Manager uses an implementation of reverse charge VAT that eliminates the identical, offsetting transactions you want to be included. It does that for simplicity, because they have no financial impact.
You can advocate to have these included. There would be nothing wrong with that. But it is equally valid to take the other viewpoint, that is, they are unnecessary because they have no effect. I suspect if we asked 3 accountants in 3 countries, we could obtain at least 4 opinions about the subject. But if you have transaction reports, it does not seem right to complain they omit transactions the program does not enter. As you said, adding those transactions—with no effect—would eliminate the issue.
Well, I made it now so reversing tax codes do actually make reversing debits/credits. It makes zero impact on financial statements but when it comes to custom reports which you can slice and dice any way you like, the inclusion is essential as it can have impact after all.