Posting and validation
Not whether the total is right — whether the entry sits in the right place.
A set of accounts can reconcile to the cent and still be open to attack. The total says nothing about whether a transaction was recorded on the right account and at the right tax rate. That is exactly where an audit starts — and exactly where the findings arise that nobody can explain later, because the documents are in the archive and the transaction is years old.
Formal accuracy and substantive accuracy are two different things
§ 158 Abs. 1 AO requires the accounts to comply with §§ 140 to 148 AO — then they shall be taken as the basis of taxation. Under subsection 2 that does not apply in so far as the circumstances of the individual case give cause to object to substantive accuracy. A wrong posting is a formal point to begin with. Whether it touches substantive accuracy is decided by whether it shifts the result — and that can be calculated rather than asserted.
What is examined
| Test | How it shows | Why it counts |
|---|---|---|
| Expected against actual tax rate | per account across the whole period | An account that systematically departs from the expected rate is the first point of any VAT audit. |
| Mixed rates on one account | several tax rates under the same account number | The most frequent cause of findings in hospitality — takeaway and eat-in run together. |
| Missing rates | entries without a tax key | They appear in no total check and surface only under data access. |
| Cross-check of individual items | sum of individual entries against every account total | Reveals differences that a trial balance does not show. |
| The entire chart of accounts | not only the accounts customary for the trade | Findings regularly arise where nobody expects them. |
| Period allocation | posting date against date of supply | Period shifts affect every plausibility test that relies on time series. |
Four statements for every finding
A finding without an origin is worthless in proceedings. For each point you therefore receive four things: what we found, where the figure comes from, how the other side will see it — and what needs to be done. The third is the one most analyses leave out, and the only one that is of any use before an audit.
Including what speaks against you
An analysis that shows only what is favourable is worthless in proceedings: the other side will find the rest anyway, and then the credibility of the whole work is in question. We also write down the findings that count against you — and say how much weight they carry.
What we contribute
We check the allocation across the entire chart of accounts and the entire period, not in samples. Every finding leads back to the individual document, and every one is rated by risk — so that you know which three of forty points actually need clearing up.
How calculation and stock control are checked against each other →
The legal provisions cited here are given for information and do not replace legal advice.