In this article
Key takeaways
- Identify whether the error is in imported data, a posting or the actual payment.
- Calculate the expected bank and supplier balances.
- Track the correction through exports, reports and any affected returns.
Identify the error before changing the books
| Finding | Evidence to obtain | Accounting consequence |
|---|---|---|
| One real payment, two imported records, only one posting | Bank statement and posting links | Remove the duplicate from further processing through the supported duplicate workflow; the ledger may already be right |
| One real payment, two postings | Bank statement, both journal entries and supplier account | Correct the extra posting and recheck bank and supplier balances |
| Two real payments for one invoice | Two distinct movements in the bank statement | Keep both payments; investigate the resulting supplier credit or refund claim |
| New price reduction agreed after close | Dated agreement and supplier correction | Determine the treatment of the new event rather than assuming the original invoice was wrong |
Keep the original documents and the history of posted changes. Section 146 AO requires the original content of an altered bookkeeping record to remain ascertainable.
Worked example: one payment was posted twice
A supplier invoice for €1,500 was correctly recorded and paid once in September. The bank statement starts at €10,000 and contains only this payment. Its closing balance is €8,500.
The ledger mistakenly contains the payment twice. The invoice itself and its VAT treatment are correct; only the settlement posting is duplicated.
| Position | Before correction | Correction | Correct result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bank ledger | €7,000 debit balance | Debit bank €1,500 | €8,500 debit balance |
| Supplier account | €1,500 debit balance | Credit supplier €1,500 | €0 |
| Expense and input VAT from the invoice | Correct | No change | Unchanged |
The duplicate settlement originally debited the supplier and credited the bank. Its reversal debits the bank and credits the supplier for €1,500. The bank now agrees with the statement and the paid invoice has no remaining balance.
There is no second expense to cancel and no actual supplier refund to chase. If the statement had shown two genuine payments, the €1,500 supplier debit balance would instead need investigation as a real overpayment.
Check how far the old data travelled
Before carrying out a posted correction, identify the receiving systems and agree the appropriate correction period and method.
| Current position | Required next step |
|---|---|
| Item is still an unposted proposal | Correct the proposal and review it before posting |
| Posted locally, never exported | Use the supported traceable correction process; repeat affected checks |
| Export generated, not imported | Withdraw the old package from use and clearly identify the replacement |
| Export partly imported | Establish exactly which entries were accepted before sending a repair or replacement |
| Export fully imported | Coordinate the correction in both ledgers and preserve the relationship to the original batch |
| Old result used in a tax return | Assess whether a notification or amended return is required and track that action separately |
Do not send a full replacement file into a partially populated target ledger without accounting for the rows already imported. That can create a second error while fixing the first.
An old error and a later event have different dates
Suppose a repair was correctly invoiced at €600 in September. In November, the supplier agrees a new goodwill reduction of €100 that was not owed in September. The later agreement is a new fact; it does not by itself prove the September books were wrong.
Now change the facts: the contract always said €500, but the invoice and posting incorrectly used €600. That requires an assessment of an original error and its consequences.
Record the service date, original invoice date, date the new fact arose and discovery date. The professional decision on recognition and any VAT adjustment follows those facts. A change in consideration may fall under section 17 UStG; it is not automatically a reason to amend the original VAT period.
A correction record that another person can use
For the duplicate-payment example, record:
- Evidence: bank statement shows one €1,500 debit; journal references identify two settlement postings.
- Action: reverse the duplicated settlement, retaining its reference and reason.
- Result: bank €8,500; supplier €0; invoice expense and VAT unchanged.
- Downstream work: identify the affected report and export version; document the receiving ledger's correction.
- Completion: date and reviewer of the repeated bank and supplier checks.
When a filed return is incorrect or incomplete and tax may have been understated, section 153 AO can require prompt notification and correction. An internal materiality threshold does not remove that obligation.
DeinHans connects documents, entries and bank allocations so the affected transaction can be followed through the correction. After the change, repeat the relevant month-close checks and establish which export package the receiving firm should use.
Sources
Sources were checked on 06 October 2026. This article provides orientation and is not tax, legal, or accounting advice.
- German Fiscal Code section 146 – bookkeeping requirements
- German Fiscal Code section 153 – correction of tax declarations
- German VAT Act section 17 – changes in consideration
- Published