Sage VAT Problem

Sage VAT Problem

Didn't find your answer?

Hey Guys

Wondered if you might be able to solve this problem I have

Im almost finished with the month & I just need to run the VAT report for the period of May

The problem I have is the VAT report figures are higher than the actual nominal codes!

If it was the other way around I would have checked the codes to see if I have put something in under the wrong code... but as its higher im not sure what to do.

The report says the sales VAT  is -7658.02 & the Purchases is – 8408.49

The nominal says sales are – 6258.83 & Purchases are – 7020.97

I have printed the nominal breakdown of each code but cant see anything wrong

What am i missing?

Replies (5)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By andy.partridge
19th Jun 2014 17:00

Look a bit closer

If you match the numbers common to both prints (ie. nominal ledger and VAT analysis) you are bound to have some left over somewhere. Unless you are suggesting Sage can not add up  . .

Thanks (0)
Scalloway Castle
By scalloway
19th Jun 2014 17:02

Previous period entreis?

Could there be someting that was not included in a previous return? Otherwise i would just check and tick each report against the other to see if an error revealed itself.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By paulwakefield1
19th Jun 2014 17:38

Two things to look for in particular

Any T9 journals to the Nominal VAT codes

Any journals crediting VAT on expenses or debiting VAT on sales (as these will increase outputs and inputs respectively rather than net down inputs and outputs respectively). It will not affect the overall VAT due but may be the cause of some of your discrepancies.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andy.partridge
19th Jun 2014 18:01

@ Paul

You are right, but the OP says they have checked against the nominal.

Any T9 transactions would not show on the VAT analysis, so they wouldn't be 'hidden', but would be an obvious difference in a one-for-one check of the two lists of numbers.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By paulwakefield1
19th Jun 2014 18:11

@Andy

Can't disagree with that but a quick scan for those issues often gets the answer and avoids the tediousness of a one to one check. One can always fall back on that later. Maybe you and I are reading "can't see anything wrong" differently.  :-)

Thanks (0)