01
of 05
Chart of Accounts Readiness
Is your ledger structure ready for tax, SST, TP, and AI scrutiny — or just for internal dashboards?
0/12
answered
answered
AStructure and Visibility
The chart of accounts reflects the current business model — not an outdated structure inherited from a different era.
Revenue categories are separated clearly enough to reflect the main streams — advisory, training, room revenue, F&B, ecommerce, project income, subscriptions, export sales.
Cost categories distinguish clearly between direct delivery costs and overhead — billable staff, COGS, ingredients, freight, direct labour, project costs, platform costs.
Related-party transactions — management fees, service fees, shared services, royalties — can be identified cleanly through the ledger structure.
The COA supports management reporting and tax review, not just internal dashboards.
BTax Consequences
Recent SST changes have been reviewed against current account mapping.
Accounts used for supplies, reimbursements, disbursements, pass-through items, discounts, and promotional support have been checked for tax treatment consequences.
The COA redesign has been reviewed for transfer pricing implications, not just reporting convenience.
The finance team can explain how the COA supports audit-trail testing from transaction to invoice to report to tax position.
CRed Flags
There are no major ledger categories that bundle unlike items together "for convenience."
The business is not relying on manual explanation after the fact because the account design is too broad.
No major COA changes were made without a tax review.
Working Note
If the COA became more detailed for AI, forecasting, or ecommerce analytics — but tax logic was not reviewed at the same time — this is a priority risk area.
02
of 05
e-Invoicing and System Logic
Does your system classify the right way — or quietly building repeated tax exposure at scale?
0/11
answered
answered
AMapping and Classification
e-Invoice mapping has been checked against the actual nature of supplies — goods, services, packages, subscriptions, project billings, room charges, F&B, disbursements, reimbursements, or bundled offers.
Tax codes and system rates match the intended treatment.
The team has tested whether system defaults could create repeated underpayment, over-collection, or misclassification.
Exception cases are documented rather than handled informally by staff memory.
BCommercial Models and Audit Trail
The system correctly handles different commercial models — retainers, milestones, subscriptions, deposits, progress claims, promotional pricing, bundles, imported goods, export sales, franchise charges.
Invoice descriptions, quantities, and commercial references are consistent with what is actually sold or delivered.
Data fields in e-Invoicing align with how the business describes transactions in contracts, quotations, booking systems, POS, or project records.
A reviewer can trace a transaction from source document to invoice, ledger, and tax position without confusion.
Staff can explain how the system handles exceptions, overrides, credits, cancellations, and reversals.
CRed Flags
No known transactions are still using legacy tax logic from before system changes.
System fixes are not being treated as a substitute for tax review.
Working Note
A wrong system setting is not a harmless IT issue once it causes a wrong tax outcome. At that point, it becomes repeated exposure.
03
of 05
Transfer Pricing Readiness
Is your TP narrative a defence that holds — or a document that looks complete but can't survive evidence?
0/11
answered
answered
ACore Narrative
The group can clearly explain who performs which functions, who owns which assets, and who assumes which risks.
The TP story reflects how the business actually operates today, not how it operated several years ago.
The legal structure and the commercial story still match.
Each entity's role — entrepreneurial, routine, support, delivery, trading, manufacturing, or project-based — is identified with evidence.
BEvidence Support and Ownership
TP documentation aligns with contracts, payroll, org charts, management accounts, ledger entries, project systems, and operational records.
Profit allocation looks commercially coherent when compared with underlying functions, costs, people, assets, and risks.
The TP report would still make sense if an outsider compared it directly with the numbers.
TP is treated as an evidence-backed defence tool, not a once-a-year writing exercise.
Senior management can defend the TP narrative verbally — not just hand over a report.
CRed Flags
The TP report does not contain generic language that could describe almost any company.
Entities labelled as "routine" — support centres, distributors, contract manufacturers — have margins and operating profiles that actually fit those labels.
Working Note
AI can help write the TP report faster. But AI cannot make the story true. The truth has to come from the business.
04
of 05
Structure Versus Substance
Does the structure hold when the narrative is lined up against the evidence?
0/9
answered
answered
AOperating Reality
The legal structure still matches who really makes decisions.
Income sits with the entity that appears to carry the relevant activity and substance.
Major operational changes have been reviewed for both SST and TP consequences.
BBusiness-Model Checks
If one entity is the main service provider or principal, it clearly shows the people, assets, contracts, and decisions that support that role.
If one entity books trading or distribution margins, it shows meaningful involvement in procurement, pricing, inventory, warehousing, or commercial control.
If one entity is labelled as manufacturer or contract manufacturer, the financials show a commercially sensible cost structure.
For hospitality, restaurants, education, construction, or ecommerce — the structure makes sense when revenue is lined up against the accounts.
CRed Flags
There is no major disconnect between how management describes the structure and how the accounts look.
No entity appears artificially stripped of cost while still reporting activity that should require it.
Working Note
If the structure only works as long as nobody lines the story up against the evidence, it is not a strong structure.
05
of 05
AI Readiness and Governance
Is AI going onto a sound spine — or about to amplify the problems you already have?
0/9
answered
answered
ABefore Buying or Deploying
The business has identified which tax assumptions are currently embedded in systems and reports.
AI outputs will be reviewed by someone who understands the underlying tax logic.
The implementation team understands that AI should sit on top of a sound tax spine — not replace it.
BData Quality and Governance
The underlying data is reliable enough for AI analysis — from project codes, booking systems, POS, ecommerce, inventory, timesheets, cost centres, or production records.
System outputs are tested against real scenarios before full rollout.
The business has a process to review exceptions, overrides, and unusual entries.
There is clear ownership for errors created or repeated by automated logic.
Management understands that cleaner dashboards do not equal lower tax risk.
No one in the project team is assuming "the software will fix it."
Working Note
AI is a loudspeaker. It multiplies whatever is already in the system — good or bad.