When the auditor objects to the cash book
A defect is not yet an add-back.
Not automatically an add-back. Under § 158 Abs. 1 AO accounts that comply with the rules 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 none. 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. The reverse holds just as firmly: 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 | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| The principle | § 158 Abs. 1 AO | Proper accounting 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 also take favourable circumstances into account. |
| The Czech Republic 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 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 record for every point why it exonerates or why it stands.
And what a defect actually triggers
If the defect does touch substantive accuracy, the route to estimation opens — but only in so far as the bases cannot be established (§ 162 Abs. 1 Satz 1 AO). Anyone who can derive turnover completely from the goods input thereby also removes the consequences of a formal defect: what can be calculated does not have to be estimated.
What we contribute
We check the completeness and consistency of till data from German, Austrian, Italian and Swiss systems, separate technical peculiarities from genuine findings, and present an assessment, the reasoning and a recommendation for every point — including where a finding speaks against you.
The legal provisions cited here are given for information and do not replace legal advice.