What to do when your accountant finds an error

Ask what is wrong, how it was identified, which entity and period are affected, and what evidence supports that conclusion. Preserve the relevant original record and the explanation. A fast unexplained adjustment can make it harder to understand both the error and the correction.

Distinguish a confirmed error from a question, a changed estimate, or a different presentation preference. Ask the responsible accountant to explain that classification under the reporting basis the company uses. A new team disagreeing with an old team does not by itself establish that the earlier treatment was wrong.

For IFRS reporting, the IFRS Foundation's IAS 8 summary distinguishes changes in estimates from errors and describes retrospective correction of material prior-period errors, subject to impracticability provisions. Other reporting bases require their own assessment. Do not assume every historical difference belongs in the current month's expense.

Trace the issue through the ledger, supporting schedules, management reports, tax work, and any information already supplied externally. The same error may appear in several outputs. Correcting the ledger alone may leave a spreadsheet or distributed report inconsistent.

Use a bounded example to test the explanation. In an illustrative accrual ledger with no tax component, an unpaid current-month rent invoice of $1,200 entered twice overstates both that expense and accounts payable by $1,200. The review should also check whether the duplicate affected payment preparation or a report already used by management.

That example does not establish how a different error should be corrected. Timing, materiality, prior issuance, and the reporting framework can change the required response. Ask the accountant to identify those factors rather than offering a universal journal-entry shortcut.

Review available transaction history, source documents, and approval records. Intuit documents that QuickBooks Online's audit log records changes and the users or system profiles associated with them. That can help establish what changed and when; it does not determine the correct accounting treatment on its own.

A logged user name may represent an automated process or integration. Investigate the event before attributing intent or blame to a person. Where the system has retention limits or incomplete historical detail, preserve the relevant evidence promptly and state what cannot be reconstructed.

Do not erase context merely to make the ledger look tidy. Ask the accountant to use the appropriate correction method and retain the link between the original issue, approved treatment, and resulting entry. Avoid direct database or import changes that bypass the normal accounting review.

Request a short correction memorandum or equivalent record. It should explain the cause, affected amounts and periods, proposed treatment, supporting evidence, reviewer, and necessary follow-up. The level of detail should match the issue; a small duplicate and a material historical misstatement deserve different attention.

Identify who approves the accounting action and who decides how affected users will be informed. If reports were issued by an external accountant or auditor, involve the appropriate professional before replacing or describing those reports. A company should not independently alter an assurance report.

For tax or other filings, have the responsible specialist assess whether action is required. Do not assume that an amended return is always necessary or that a small bookkeeping correction has no filing consequence. The facts and applicable rules determine the next step.

Verify the approved entry or transaction change in the intended period. Reperform the relevant tie-out, refresh dependent schedules, and compare the corrected report with the previous version. Confirm that the intended difference occurred without creating another inconsistency.

Mark replacement reports clearly and record their recipients. If a manager used the earlier information to make a decision, explain the changed fact and its practical effect. Simply sending a new attachment may not make the correction understood.

Keep unresolved questions separate from completed fixes. An initial review may identify a confirmed duplicate and a broader concern about the same import process. Correct the established issue while giving the wider investigation its own owner and scope.

Ask why the error passed through preparation and review. The cause might be a duplicate import, unclear source ownership, an incorrect recurring rule, or an unsupported judgment. Choose a prevention step that addresses that cause and confirm it in later work.

Assess severity, recurrence, detection, and response together. A provider that identifies an error, explains it, and corrects the cause gives different evidence from one that silently changes numbers or repeatedly avoids review. The existence of an error alone does not tell the whole service story.

Discuss any fee adjustment or claim through the appropriate contractual and professional channels. Preserve the factual record and keep necessary accounting work moving while that separate issue is addressed.