Indeed. The questions to be answered are:

•  Are 'closed circuiting' (or 'quasi closed circuiting') credits/debts significant enough to justify the creation of such a system (11)? 

In order to possibly decide where to implement a pilot project: 

•  Which areas (sectoral/geographical) are likely to 'contain' the greater 'concentration' of clearance 

opportunity 'closed circuits' ? 

Economists, and not only, are invited !

The measure, theoretically implementable at private corporations' level (7), could be really effective only if 

implemented at State (better, E.U.) level (8), because it needs to have the broader possible reach, and because 

MS/the EU could integrate existing services and fiscal instruments / duties, establishing this electronic centralized 

platform as binding. 

The State/M.S.s/E.U. could decide to involve the banking system or other operators in this mechanisms, in order 

to 'outsource' some of the structural costs / fulfillment duties implied in implementing such a massive measure. 

This is a policy making decision: States could decide to apply this system (mutatis mutandis) to the credits/debts 

towards the State itself / M.S.s themselves. 

The system could automatically register all clearances in the system, and ideally upload them on the related invoices / electronic accountancy of each company. 

A unified European invoice model document could also be adopted. 

When more than one 'clearing path' is possible the system could be programmed for: 

equal distribution of the clearance opportunities; 

priority systems: the system might be programmed in order to 'choose' the most beneficial clearing path (i.e. the 

path which determines the greater 'savings', or avoids the greater damages, to the whole economic system). 

More complex for reasons of equal treatment/fairness. 

Of course: it would be registered electronically by the system on the related invoices / electronic accountancy. 

It is a policy decision. In special cases it could be provided for, in several ways. 

'Anticipated clearance': when a certain compensation would be possible but one or more invoices would not yet be 

due/collectible, the State might wish to intervene in a way to make the clearance possible anyway by anticipating 

the amounts (also see next FAQ regarding 'quasi closed' circuits).

In case clearance opportunities are detected as 'close enough' (with criteria to be established at policy making 

level), even though a 'closed circuit' is not there because of the lack of one or more links of the chain, the system 

could be programmed to permit  intervention of the EU (or one or more of the affected MS) by 'filling the gaps'

(i.e. providing -also temporarily- the resources, with substitution then into the creditor/s' position/s). 

In case of any controversy over the amount (with the consequent non confirmation of the preliminary filing) the 

invoice would not be part of the clearance system until a (final?) court decision/other legal binding document 

would be presented to the competent 'compulsory preliminary filing confirmation for registration purposes office'. 

Pending the court decision, this case could also fall within the cases of state backed or assisted clearance (policy 

making decision). 

A due time before and after the clearance hour (ex. midnight Greenwich time each day) is allowed for the system 

to cross examine and check all the data available at a given time, while all the new data (including payments) 

would be 'frozen' and put in a virtual 'cue' during this time (minutes or seconds, depending on the technology of 

the systems). 

Payment orders would be withdrawn by the system through automated bank procedures to avoid double payments, 

for debts which would have been already cleared by the system during the clearance procedure. 

Companies would receive confirmation on which credits / debts (obviously for equal amounts within each other 

within each company) would have been cleared by the system. 

In 'phase 2' of the clearing process the same mathematical model (mutatis mutandis) could be utilized, as also with 

clearing houses multiple daily payments of checks and all related operations implying physical transfer of money 

are avoided by reciprocal clearances for equal amounts. 

Here the focus would not be on avoiding physical transfers (which would represent only the second step of the 

implementation process), but to detect 'phase 1' clearance opportunities picking out various groups of (time to 

time) unknown subjects to be combined by 'closed circuiting data' within a myriad of (yet) known subjects. 

The system should be implemented by integrating existing duties/services (tax payers are currently already 

inputting their invoices' data into computer-systems), and should be able to avoid a considerable amount of losses 

for the economy. It could be thinkable of starting (after an impact assessment) with a pilot project in some areas 

(sectoral/geographical) likely to 'contain' the greater 'concentration' of clearance opportunity 'closed circuits'. 

Input of the invoices data -anyway binding- on the system would mean for companies a statistical increase of 

payment of their credits/debts. 

If coupled with lowering of fiscal pressure (10) able to let companies breath some fresh air, it would enhance 

cooperation by conveying the benefits of timely uploading their data in the centralized databases, rather than 

create misconception of the new system as an instrument to further burden them. The outcome due to and 

increased number of operations, and an increased rate of fiscally 'visible' (and therefore tax collection generating) 

ones, could enable States to further lower fiscal pressure, in a virtual circle ideally (instrumental, for e.g., also to 

attract more F.D.I.s., etc. etc.). 

This is a policy issue to be determined, as in theory certain thresholds could be decided in order to lower the 

implementation burden: nevertheless, a thorough economic analysis will have to show whether also the smaller 

amounts would have a significant impact on cross clearance opportunities. 

Only in theory it could be possible to think of a 'bankruptcy revocation' for those companies that would have not 

gone bankrupt should the system have been in function. 

The r.o.i. could be not justifiable, considering for ex. that production plants would have been meanwhile either 

sold or become obsolete. Nevertheless it could be maybe thinkable of including only 'recent' (ex. within 6 months) 

bankruptcies, whose trustees in bankruptcy could be requested to upload the data in a special section (but many 

legal technicalities should be considered) of the clearing platform.

Not for the moment. Yet, a system similar to the current Chinese one (a sort of lottery, which for ex. in Italy could 

be more similar to the so popular 'Superenalotto') in a way to stimulate the request for the issuance of invoices by 

customers at all levels, as this might turn for them -and maybe, partially, for the issuer himself- into an important 

gain in money, could be thought of.