Forensic fact-finding
The authority estimates. We calculate.
Every legal system ties the power to estimate to the same condition: to a defect. No defect, no power. Anyone who negotiates the amount of an estimate has already conceded that estimating was permitted — we start one step earlier. From establishing the facts through the calculation to evidence that withstands scrutiny. In cooperation with your tax adviser and your legal representatives.
01
Account allocation and validation
Not whether the total adds up — whether the transaction sits in the right place.
A set of books can reconcile to the cent and still be open to attack. We examine the allocation: expected against actual tax rate per account, mixed rates on a single account, missing rates, and the cross-check of individual items against every account total. The entire chart of accounts is examined, not only the accounts customary for the type of business. For every finding you receive four things: what we found, where the figure comes from, how the other side will read it — and what to do about it.
What is examined in the allocation of entries →
02
Cash-register review
Finding or artefact — the distinction decides the case.
A large share of what appears in a cash-register review as an anomaly is none: in ordinary operation an electronic register produces patterns that look like manipulation and are not. Anyone who fails to recognise them for what they are mistakes normal operation for a finding — and then negotiates over an addition for which there is no occasion. We examine the completeness and consistency of cash data from German, Austrian, Italian and Swiss systems and separate the one from the other — with an assessment, a reason and a recommendation for every point.
Finding or artefact — where the line runs →
03
Costing validation
Does the costing agree with the goods movement?
Purchase, recipe, production, sale — and back to the beginning via the goods movement. Where the quantities consumed by calculation diverge from those purchased, that is precisely where the question lies; where they coincide, it is an independent confirmation of the declared revenue. We carry out the examination item by item and state which share of the range is revenue-relevant and which is not.
How the circle closes →
04
Depreciation analysis
The rates against the regulation, not against habit.
Assets that have sat in the fixed-asset register for years and were never written down. Rates that vary from item to item. Special depreciation without the legal basis it relies on. A depreciation account that does not reconcile at the reporting date. We check every item against the applicable regulation and grade the findings by risk — including those that count against you.
What is examined in depreciation →
05
Reconstruction of missing records
Whoever knows enough constraints does not have to guess.
Records are not always missing because they were lost — often they were never kept. A register books aggregate amounts without a breakdown, a price list can no longer be found, a period predates the recording obligation. We do not close such gaps with assumptions but with constraints: purchases limit what could have been produced. The recipe limits how it divides up. The goods movement limits what could have remained. Where enough constraints come together, only one solution remains — and that is not an estimate but the only figure that satisfies every constraint. Where the constraints are not sufficient, we say so. Beforehand.
Conditions instead of assumptions →
06
Reconstruction from the officially published methodology
An indicator is not a verdict. It is the result of a calculation.
Tax administrations increasingly rate businesses by indicators and decide on that basis whom to audit. Italy does so through the Indici Sintetici di Affidabilità fiscale (ISA); other administrations use comparable scoring. The Italian methodology is officially published — formulae, coefficient tables and allocation matrices are annexed to the ministerial decree in the Gazzetta Ufficiale. We therefore recalculate the score against the published specification rather than against a conjecture, working line by line from the business’s own accounts. What nobody cross-checks are the extra-accounting entries: seats, opening days, prices, staff days, declared once a year. Whoever checks the inputs checks the score — without arguing over a single euro of turnover.
Why the published source is the stronger statement →
07
Dossier and expert report
Evidence you can recalculate.
An expert report is worth as much as it can be verified. We record every purchase invoice for the period under review — not a sample — attach its recipe to every product, calculate from that the quantity actually produced and from that the sale. Every figure traces back to a document; every calculation step is disclosed. The report itself stays neutral: it establishes facts and leaves the appraisal to the court. The dossier around it organises timelines, contradictions and courses of action for the decision. Both in a single volume — the evidence and the strategy.
What a usable expert report needs →
08
The allegation of manipulation
What could not have happened technically did not happen.
Between a record and its subsequent alteration, modern register systems place several barriers that are independent of one another. Each operates on its own; anyone seeking to suppress a single item would have to overcome all of them at once. We establish which of them were in effect in the case at hand and document it in a form that holds up in criminal or administrative penalty proceedings. That reverses the direction of proof: it is not for the accused to show that he altered nothing.
How the direction of proof is turned around →
09
The expert report in court
We stand behind our calculation.
We disclose the raw data and document the calculation steps so that a recalculation is possible without special software. We ourselves propose that the result be verified by a court-appointed expert — nobody with something to hide does that. And we appear for our report at the hearing. We establish facts; the appraisal is for the court, the legal consequence for your representatives.
What we stand behind in the hearing →
10
Contribution margin and full costing
Gross profit does not tell you whether you are earning.
A mark-up of two hundred per cent sounds healthy. But it knows only the cost of goods — not working time, not equipment, not floor space. That is why in many businesses it is precisely the best-selling item, the one with the highest mark-up, that ends up in the red. We calculate per product: contribution margin, full cost, trade margin and mark-up side by side, separated into internal and external costs, aggregated by division and sales channel. Price changes mid-year are treated as their own period rather than being overwritten. It is the same data collection from which the forensic full costing arises. Whoever has it once has both.
Why the best seller can end up in the red →
We take no place that is already occupied.
Your tax adviser keeps the books, your legal representatives conduct the proceedings. We establish the facts and calculate — and pass the result to both. Tax advice and legal representation stay where they belong; so does the client relationship.
