The auditor says the till records are not in proper order. What follows from that?
Not automatically an add-back. Under § 158 Abs. 1 AO — the German Fiscal Code — accounts that comply with the provisions 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. What matters is therefore whether the defect complained of touches substantive accuracy — not whether there is a defect at all.
A formal defect and substantive inaccuracy are two different things
In orderly operation a till system produces patterns that look like a defect and are not. Anyone who does not recognise them for what they are mistakes normal operation for a finding — and then negotiates over an add-back for which there is no cause. But the converse holds too: a genuine defect does not shrink because it is disputed. The first task is therefore to tell the two apart.
What applies, and who has to show what
The provisions in this table are German law. Most European legal orders know the same principle — set out verbatim and by country in the register of legal bases.
| Point | Legal basis | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| The principle | § 158 Abs. 1 AO | Proper accounts shall be taken as the basis of taxation. |
| The exception | § 158 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 AO | Only in so far as there is cause to object to substantive accuracy. |
| The consequence | § 162 Abs. 1 Satz 1 AO | Estimation only in so far as the bases cannot be established or calculated. |
| Favourable circumstances too | § 88 Abs. 1 Satz 2 AO | The authority must take favourable circumstances into account as well. |
| Czechia for comparison | § 92 Abs. 5 lit. c daňového řádu | There the statute says it expressly: the authority proves the facts that disprove the completeness of the records. |
| Croatia for comparison | Članak 89. Opći porezni zakon | Taxation rests on the accounts unless the circumstances indicate that they are inaccurate. |
What often counts as a defect in practice and is none
Gaps in consecutive number sequences, receipts without a signature, transactions appearing twice, time differences between till and security module: each of these phenomena can be a finding — and each can be a designed property of the system. Which of the two applies is decided by the data, not by the ratio. We examine that and write down for every point why it is cleared or why it stands.
And what a defect actually triggers
If the defect touches substantive accuracy, the road to estimation opens — but only in so far as the bases cannot be established (§ 162 Abs. 1 Satz 1 AO). Whoever can derive revenue in full from goods input thereby also removes the consequences of a formal defect: what can be calculated need not be estimated.
What we contribute
We examine the completeness and consistency of till data from German, Austrian, Italian and Swiss systems, separate technical peculiarities from genuine findings, and present an assessment, a reason and a recommendation for every point. Including where a finding speaks against you.
Measured against Europe’s strictest standard
Burden of proof and its reversal — this standard is not equally high everywhere. It is documented for 24 legal orders.
Where the burden of proof lies with the taxpayer, only a closed set of calculations carries it: it checks itself, because a single wrong value stands out against the rest.
In our register this axis is recorded as met in 23 of 24 documented legal orders. The assessment is ours and can be read country by country with its source — it is not a third party’s certification.
The legal provisions reproduced here are for information and do not replace legal advice. For application in an individual case the legal position at the time of the proceedings must be examined by a lawyer admitted in the country and field concerned.