A strong review does not start in the filing form. It starts with a simpler question: do sales, purchases, adjustments, supporting records and accounts tell the same story for the period?
The return starts before the filing screen
I treat a VAT return as the result of a financial and document cycle, not as a file that sits outside the accounts. If sales, purchases or adjustments are not organised, typing numbers into a return does not solve the underlying gap.
1. Sales are not reconciled to their sources
The first review point is the relationship between recorded sales and invoices or receipts, point-of-sale or platform reports and collection channels. I am not looking for numerical equality without context; I am looking for explainable timing differences, returns, adjustments and period cut-off.
- Compare sales totals by source and period.
- Separate cancellations, returns and explainable discounts.
- Investigate differences between operational reports and the ledger before filing.
2. Every purchase invoice is treated as a finished tax conclusion
A document does not automatically make the accounting or tax treatment correct. The nature of the purchase, its connection to the business, the period and the supplier information still need to be reviewed against the way the transaction was recorded.
- Connect purchases to the real activity.
- Review timing and period recognition.
- Confirm that the records required for review are available.
3. Credit notes, returns and adjustments are handled late
Recurring differences often appear when there is no defined process for credit notes, debit notes, returns and other adjustments. The risk is not one transaction; it is an inconsistent trail between accounts, records and reporting periods.
4. The return is prepared before the accounting period is closed
If return data is compiled before the period is fully recorded or bank, customer and supplier reconciliations are complete, the team may not know whether a difference is an error or simply an unrecorded movement. A defined internal close date before filing reduces that ambiguity.
5. Repeated differences have no explanation log
Not every difference is an error, but a recurring difference without a documented explanation makes later review harder. I prefer a short log of material differences: the reason, treatment, period impact and any additional evidence required.
6. The process depends on one person rather than a review file
Even when an experienced professional prepares the return, the file should show the source of the numbers, key reconciliations, adjustments and treatment decisions. That supports continuity and makes the period understandable later.
A short pre-filing checklist
Before approval, ask whether the period is complete, sales and purchases have been connected to the accounts, notes and returns were reviewed, unexplained differences remain, and the file contains enough reconciliation evidence for another reviewer to understand the figures.
Explore our VAT return review and preparation service →
