We are restoring the requested view from its saved state. Your account and work remain unchanged while you wait.
Back to the track — Financial Accountant
A supplier invoice reached you by email today, dated the third of this month. The warehouse received the goods on the twenty-eighth of last month, and the goods receipt note says ninety-eight units where the purchase order said one hundred. Your manager asks two things: how much do you record, and in which month. Your answers move two months of costs and the supplier statement reconciliation, and they are the first thing anyone reviews you on.
A source document is not the event; it is evidence that an event took place. An invoice does not create the obligation — the obligation arose the moment the goods were received, and the invoice evidences its amount. That distinction is not a matter of wording: it is the whole basis of accrual accounting. A business that records when the paper arrives is measuring the speed of its post rather than its performance, so a month whose post is slow looks profitable and a month where late invoices pile up looks poor, and both are lies.
Every document carries the same five facts however different it looks. A supplier invoice, a goods receipt, a bank statement and a lease differ in design and agree on those five, and the practical gain from taking them in a fixed order is that you stop reading a document top to bottom as text and start interrogating it. A document you have never seen becomes workable in a minute, and a document missing one of the five is caught before it is recorded rather than after. That habit alone is most of what separates a quick accountant from a slow one.
The question that follows those five immediately: what do you do when one of them is missing? The answer differs by which one, and that is where most errors sit. A missing authority means the cost was incurred without approval, and that is a control finding no back-dated approval written today resolves — you record the invoice if the service was genuinely performed, and escalate the gap to whoever can deal with it. A missing tax number blocks only the deduction, not the recording: the cost goes in in full with no input tax, and a corrected invoice is requested. A missing receipt blocks the recording entirely, because you do not know whether anything arrived. The difference between the three is that the first is a governance problem, the second a tax problem, and the third an existence problem — and treating all three the same way is what makes an accounts department look careful when it is not.
The document also tells you what not to record, and that side is the neglected one. The quantity printed on an invoice is the supplier's claim, while the goods receipt evidences what actually arrived — it comes from inside your own business and is signed by whoever took delivery. So when the two disagree, the receipt governs the cost and the inventory, and the difference stays an open exception to be claimed by debit note. Recording the invoice in full and "settling it later" looks like the quick answer and is the worst one available: it puts a liability on your business with nothing received against it, lifts book inventory above what physically exists, and surfaces three months later in the supplier statement reconciliation when nobody remembers how it arose.
| The question | Governing document | Why |
|---|---|---|
| What quantity? | The goods receipt | Evidence of what arrived; the invoice is a claim and the order an intention |
| Which month? | The receipt or service date | The obligation arose then, not when the paper was printed |
| At what price? | The purchase order or contract | An invoice at a different price is an exception to claim, not a new price |
| How much tax? | A compliant tax invoice | No input deduction without an invoice carrying its elements |
| Does it get paid? | The three-way match | The three agree — otherwise it is an exception documented before payment |
Every transaction has three dates rather than one, and confusing them is the source of most beginners' errors. You may well post in May an entry whose event date is April, as long as April's period is open — and that separation is what makes closing a month possible after it has ended. The first thing to ask about a new accounting system is not how to enter a journal, but who holds the permission to open and close a period.
| The date | What it is | What it governs |
|---|---|---|
| Event date | The day the goods were received or the service performed | The period the cost is recorded in |
| Document date | The day the invoice was printed | Which tax return the tax enters |
| Posting date | The day you keyed the entry into the system | Nothing in accounting — traceability only |
You may ask: what is the posting date for, then, if it governs nothing? Its use is that it is the only one of the three that says when the business learned of the event. When a review shows an entry with a January event date posted in May, the question is not whether the entry is right but why it was late: was the document delayed at the supplier, at whoever received it, or in the accounts department? The gap between event date and posting date is the only available measure of how fast your document cycle runs, and it is the first figure anyone wanting to improve it looks at. Which is why the posting date is never adjusted to match the event date "so the file looks tidy": that erases the one piece of information it carried.
VAT on purchases is not part of the cost of what you bought. It is an amount you paid the supplier to pass on to the authority on your behalf, and you recover it by deducting it from the tax you collected on your sales — so it is an asset of your business rather than a cost of the goods. Capitalising it into inventory overstates cost of sales by fifteen per cent, shows a margin lower than the real one, and can drive a pricing decision built on a cost that was never a cost.
The recovery mechanism itself is worth seeing once in full, because anyone who has not sees tax as a vague sort of expense. Through the period you accumulate in the input account everything you paid in tax on your purchases, and in the output account everything you collected from your customers. At period end the smaller is deducted from the larger: if output is higher you remit the difference to the authority and both accounts clear to zero; if input is higher — as happens to a business that bought major assets or has only just started trading — you have a balance to reclaim or carry forward. In neither case was the tax ever a cost to you or revenue of yours; it was an amount passing through your business on its way to the authority. That is exactly why it stands in a balance-sheet account rather than the income statement.
When two documents disagree there is one procedure, followed rather than negotiated: record what the stronger evidence proves, and open an exception for the difference. An exception does not obstruct the work; it documents it. As for an invoice exceeding what was received, that is the one case where payment stops outright — because an overpayment is not recovered by an entry: posting one tidies your books and leaves your money with the supplier.
For all these reasons the first thing built in any accounts department is not the chart of accounts but the discipline of receiving documents. That order is not bureaucracy: every step before posting turns the posting itself into one minute rather than ten, and turns a question about an entry six months old into a search in a register rather than a dig through boxes. Disorder at this stage does not show today; it shows the day an auditor asks for a sample of twenty entries and three days go into assembling papers that should have been ordered already — three days that are a real cost the department paid in advance, on the day it decided to post first and file later.
One question every beginner asks remains: why so much rigour over a sheet of paper worth a few thousand? The answer is that the single entry is not the issue. A document is read once and recorded once, but the way you read it repeats thousands of times a year, and a business whose accountants read invoices the way they read email produces books nobody trusts and nobody can locate the fault in. Add to that what an auditor actually does first: not examine the statements, but pull a sample of entries and ask for their documents. An entry you cannot find paper for becomes a finding, and findings that repeat become a qualified opinion.
The treatment starts from these documents. Follow the numbers to identify recognition date, amount, counterparty, reference and approval evidence before preparing the entry.
Facts and supporting evidence
Case one — an invoice arriving after receipt was recognised. Purchase order: one hundred units at SAR 250.00 each. Goods receipt: ninety-eight units on the 28th of the previous month. The goods were recognised then against goods received not invoiced. The supplier invoice arrived this month for ninety-eight units: net 24,500.00, VAT at 15% of 3,675.00, total 28,175.00. The task now is to post the invoice without recognising the inventory a second time.
Correct treatment and entry
| Account | Debit | Credit |
|---|---|---|
| Goods received not invoiced | 24,500.00 | |
| Input VAT | 3,675.00 | |
| Accounts payable — supplier | 28,175.00 | |
| Total (SAR) | 28,175.00 | 28,175.00 |
Treatment and financial effect
On the 28th of the previous month the entry was debit inventory 24,500.00 and credit goods received not invoiced 24,500.00: receipt established the asset and the close liability. When the invoice arrives, inventory is no longer a line. Goods received not invoiced is debited to clear it, deductible input VAT of 3,675.00 is recognised, and the supplier payable opens at the 28,175.00 total. Inventory therefore appears once, the close liability disappears, and the named supplier liability takes its place. The two units not received remain an open purchasing item and enter neither the journal nor the payment.
Reperformance starts from this case's own facts: Case one — an invoice arriving after receipt was recognised. Purchase order: one hundred units at SAR 250.00 each. Goods receipt: ninety-eight units on the 28th of the previous month. The goods were recognised then against goods received not invoiced. The supplier invoice arrived this month for ninety-eight units: net 24,500.00, VAT at 15% of 3,675.00, total 28,175.00. The task now is to post the invoice without recognising the inventory a second time. Obtain the original source that proves this event. The training drawings The supplier's tax invoice, The warehouse goods receipt note explain field shape and reading order; they do not replace the case document or transfer their figures into it. Match entity, period, currency, reference and version to the event source, cut-off memo and journal approval, then confirm that the source supports the debit side (Goods received not invoiced, Input VAT) and the credit side (Accounts payable — supplier). Missing ownership, date, reference or approval remains an open exception; a balancing journal or undocumented assumption does not cure it.
Remeasure from the facts before reading the proposed journal, then add it independently: total debits 28,175.00 and total credits 28,175.00. Debit detail: Goods received not invoiced for 24,500.00; Input VAT for 3,675.00. Credit detail: Accounts payable — supplier for 28,175.00. Link every line to the recognition or measurement rule explained in the lecture, then trace its reference and posting date. After posting, test the general ledger, subledger and related reconciliation. Equal sides prove arithmetic only, not the correct account, period or classification.
Before close, compare the correct treatment with the common alternative and record its specific effect: Inventory and accruals are each overstated by 24,500.00. The accounts may look unrelated in the trial balance, but their substantiation reveals that one goods receipt created two assets and two liabilities. If the inventory sells before detection, the overstatement moves into cost of sales and margin. Do not close until the journal agrees with the trial balance and financial-statement lines and an independent reviewer can move from balance to account, reference and this event's own source. Keep the calculation, source version, journal identifier, reconciliation result and unresolved exceptions in the same workpaper. An attached file without a stated conclusion is not review evidence.
Facts and supporting evidence
Case two — goods arrived, invoice has not. The warehouse received 1,200 cartons on the 27th at the purchase order price of 12.50 each, SAR 15,000.00 in all, and no invoice arrived before the month closed. The close is in three days.
Correct treatment and entry
| Account | Debit | Credit |
|---|---|---|
| Inventory | 15,000.00 | |
| Accrued liabilities — goods received not invoiced | 15,000.00 | |
| Total (SAR) | 15,000.00 | 15,000.00 |
Treatment and financial effect
The goods are in the warehouse, so the event occurred and the cost belongs to this month. The value comes from the purchase order as the best estimate available, and the invoice corrects any difference when it arrives. There is no input tax in this entry at all: deduction needs a tax invoice, and there is no invoice yet. The credit is not the supplier's account but a separate goods-received-not-invoiced account — because the supplier's account will open in the invoice's name when it arrives, and recording it in both doubles the liability.
Reperformance starts from this case's own facts: Case two — goods arrived, invoice has not. The warehouse received 1,200 cartons on the 27th at the purchase order price of 12.50 each, SAR 15,000.00 in all, and no invoice arrived before the month closed. The close is in three days. Obtain the original source that proves this event. The training drawings The supplier's tax invoice, The warehouse goods receipt note explain field shape and reading order; they do not replace the case document or transfer their figures into it. Match entity, period, currency, reference and version to the event source, cut-off memo and journal approval, then confirm that the source supports the debit side (Inventory) and the credit side (Accrued liabilities — goods received not invoiced). Missing ownership, date, reference or approval remains an open exception; a balancing journal or undocumented assumption does not cure it.
Remeasure from the facts before reading the proposed journal, then add it independently: total debits 15,000.00 and total credits 15,000.00. Debit detail: Inventory for 15,000.00. Credit detail: Accrued liabilities — goods received not invoiced for 15,000.00. Link every line to the recognition or measurement rule explained in the lecture, then trace its reference and posting date. After posting, test the general ledger, subledger and related reconciliation. Equal sides prove arithmetic only, not the correct account, period or classification.
Facts and supporting evidence
Case three — a services invoice with no purchase order after the accrual was posted. A tax advisory firm issued an invoice for SAR 8,000.00 net, VAT of 1,200.00 and a total of 9,200.00 for advice delivered in the quarter that ended last month. The expense had been recognised in that quarter against accrued expenses of 8,000.00. There is no purchase order, but the file holds an approval email from the finance manager dated before the work was performed.
Correct treatment and entry
| Account | Debit | Credit |
|---|---|---|
| Accrued expenses — professional fees | 8,000.00 | |
| Input VAT | 1,200.00 | |
| Accounts payable — supplier | 9,200.00 | |
| Total (SAR) | 9,200.00 | 9,200.00 |
Treatment and financial effect
The service was assigned to the quarter in which it was performed through debit professional fees expense 8,000.00 and credit accrued expenses 8,000.00. The invoice therefore clears the accrual rather than creating the expense again: debit the accrual 8,000.00, debit input VAT 1,200.00 once a valid invoice is held, and credit the supplier payable 9,200.00. Authority comes from the pre-service approval email issued by someone within their approval limit; an approval written after the invoice arrives documents a late exception, not evidence that the purchase was authorised before commitment.
Reperformance starts from this case's own facts: Case three — a services invoice with no purchase order after the accrual was posted. A tax advisory firm issued an invoice for SAR 8,000.00 net, VAT of 1,200.00 and a total of 9,200.00 for advice delivered in the quarter that ended last month. The expense had been recognised in that quarter against accrued expenses of 8,000.00. There is no purchase order, but the file holds an approval email from the finance manager dated before the work was performed. Obtain the original source that proves this event. The training drawings The supplier's tax invoice, The warehouse goods receipt note explain field shape and reading order; they do not replace the case document or transfer their figures into it. Match entity, period, currency, reference and version to the event source, cut-off memo and journal approval, then confirm that the source supports the debit side (Accrued expenses — professional fees, Input VAT) and the credit side (Accounts payable — supplier). Missing ownership, date, reference or approval remains an open exception; a balancing journal or undocumented assumption does not cure it.
Facts and supporting evidence
Case four — a finance invoice charging VAT on exempt return. A finance provider billed an explicit administration fee of SAR 4,000.00 at the standard rate and financing return of SAR 600.00 earned through the exempt financing margin, then charged 15% on the whole 4,600.00 — SAR 690.00 — and claimed a total of 5,290.00. The invoice was returned and a corrected invoice arrived with VAT of 600.00 and a total of 5,200.00; the following journal is for that corrected invoice.
Correct treatment and entry
| Account | Debit | Credit |
|---|---|---|
| Loan administration fees | 4,000.00 | |
| Finance costs — financing return | 600.00 | |
| Input VAT | 600.00 | |
| Accounts payable — finance provider | 5,200.00 | |
| Total (SAR) | 5,200.00 | 5,200.00 |
Treatment and financial effect
ZATCA's financial-services guidance separates explicit consideration for a service, such as the taxable administration fee, from return earned through the exempt financing margin. The lines are therefore tested before the total: 15% of 4,000.00 is 600.00, and the 90.00 charged on financing return is not accepted as input VAT. Do not post the erroneous invoice and manufacture an unexplained difference; block and return it, then post the corrected version with the fee and finance cost in separate accounts, input VAT of 600.00 and a payable of 5,200.00.
Reperformance starts from this case's own facts: Case four — a finance invoice charging VAT on exempt return. A finance provider billed an explicit administration fee of SAR 4,000.00 at the standard rate and financing return of SAR 600.00 earned through the exempt financing margin, then charged 15% on the whole 4,600.00 — SAR 690.00 — and claimed a total of 5,290.00. The invoice was returned and a corrected invoice arrived with VAT of 600.00 and a total of 5,200.00; the following journal is for that corrected invoice. Obtain the original source that proves this event. The training drawings The supplier's tax invoice, The warehouse goods receipt note explain field shape and reading order; they do not replace the case document or transfer their figures into it. Match entity, period, currency, reference and version to the event source, cut-off memo and journal approval, then confirm that the source supports the debit side (Loan administration fees, Finance costs — financing return, Input VAT) and the credit side (Accounts payable — finance provider). Missing ownership, date, reference or approval remains an open exception; a balancing journal or undocumented assumption does not cure it.
In a real accounting system you enter the invoice linked to the purchase order and the goods receipt, and the system proposes the entry itself and blocks the difference before payment. That spares you the arithmetic; it does not spare you the understanding. The system proposes what it was configured to propose, and you are the one signing that the proposal is right. An accountant who cannot say why the system proposed this entry cannot catch it when it proposes a wrong one — and it proposes a wrong one whenever the link is incomplete, the supplier's tax code is wrong, or the purchasing category points at the wrong account. The most dangerous thing in the cycle is the permission to override the match block by hand: it is the door unmatched invoices come through, and the first thing an auditor asks is who holds it, how often it was used, and with what written justification.
The workpaper holds three complete documents: a services invoice with no purchase order, a goods receipt a month ahead of its invoice, and a finance invoice charging VAT on exempt return. Extract the five facts for each, then state an explicit decision: post or hold. Write the dated journal for a postable document; for the third invoice, document the hold reason and required correction first, then test the journal using the corrected figures instead of letting a balanced entry validate a defective document. The documents repeat the decision patterns worked in cases two, three and four, but the facts are no longer handed to you separately; you must extract and connect them yourself. This is where understanding becomes a reviewable workpaper. Keep it in your professional work samples.
Work output: A journal entry
These are yours once downloaded, and need no account. Fill them with your own figures and keep them in your portfolio.
The tool opens on the example's own invoice, in good order. Change a figure or drop an element and watch the verdict move.
The invoice is complete; its input tax is deductible
One delivery, its facts reaching you one at a time across two months as they do at work. Decide at each step before you see the next, and do not go back — work does not.
What you haveIn front of you: a purchase order for one hundred units at 250.00 each, and a supplier invoice that arrived today. Nothing else.
The arithmetic in this case runs in the tool itself, which is open to you any time with your own figures.
If you got any step above wrong, write three lines in your log: which document you took the figure from, which one you should have taken it from, and what the difference would have done to the month's cost. Read them back in a week — a mistake you wrote out yourself does not fade the way a correction you merely read does.
This is not sent anywhere and not stored here. Write it down for yourself — in the workpaper you downloaded, or on paper.
The document is evidence; the entry is your record of it. Take the amount from what was received, the date from when the event happened, the tax to its own account rather than into cost — and never record a figure you cannot point to on paper.
An invoice arrives for one hundred units and the goods receipt says ninety-eight. What do you record, and what do you do about the difference?
Answer every question. Getting them all right records this lesson; you may retry as often as you need.
Reading alone records nothing.
The complete applied walkthrough is available below while the recording is prepared.
Three sheets on the table: a purchase order, a goods receipt note, an invoice. I lift the purchase order — this is what we asked for. An intention, not an event; nothing is recorded from it. I lift the invoice — this is the supplier's claim, and its date is the date it was printed, not the date the goods arrived. I lift the goods receipt note — this alone says what arrived and when, and the amount and the date come from here. The three sometimes say three different numbers, and only one of them enters the books. And when the invoice exceeds the receipt, payment stops, because an overpayment is not recovered by an entry.
Before close, compare the correct treatment with the common alternative and record its specific effect: SAR 2,250.00 of input tax claimed with nothing behind it — a tax error rather than a bookkeeping one, and the exposure is your business's. Then when the invoice arrives and is recorded in its own name the supplier's balance doubles to 34,500.00, and the difference surfaces in the statement reconciliation two months later with no explanation attached. Do not close until the journal agrees with the trial balance and financial-statement lines and an independent reviewer can move from balance to account, reference and this event's own source. Keep the calculation, source version, journal identifier, reconciliation result and unresolved exceptions in the same workpaper. An attached file without a stated conclusion is not review evidence.
Remeasure from the facts before reading the proposed journal, then add it independently: total debits 9,200.00 and total credits 9,200.00. Debit detail: Accrued expenses — professional fees for 8,000.00; Input VAT for 1,200.00. Credit detail: Accounts payable — supplier for 9,200.00. Link every line to the recognition or measurement rule explained in the lecture, then trace its reference and posting date. After posting, test the general ledger, subledger and related reconciliation. Equal sides prove arithmetic only, not the correct account, period or classification.
Before close, compare the correct treatment with the common alternative and record its specific effect: Current expense is overstated by 9,200.00, the prior accrual still carries an 8,000.00 credit, and 1,200.00 of input VAT is no longer visible. Rolling the accrual forward or writing off the difference does not fix it; the invoice must be linked to the same accrual journal, followed by a fresh reconciliation of expense, liabilities and input VAT. Do not close until the journal agrees with the trial balance and financial-statement lines and an independent reviewer can move from balance to account, reference and this event's own source. Keep the calculation, source version, journal identifier, reconciliation result and unresolved exceptions in the same workpaper. An attached file without a stated conclusion is not review evidence.
Remeasure from the facts before reading the proposed journal, then add it independently: total debits 5,200.00 and total credits 5,200.00. Debit detail: Loan administration fees for 4,000.00; Finance costs — financing return for 600.00; Input VAT for 600.00. Credit detail: Accounts payable — finance provider for 5,200.00. Link every line to the recognition or measurement rule explained in the lecture, then trace its reference and posting date. After posting, test the general ledger, subledger and related reconciliation. Equal sides prove arithmetic only, not the correct account, period or classification.
Before close, compare the correct treatment with the common alternative and record its specific effect: The result is 90.00 of unsupported input VAT, an account that merges an operating fee with finance cost, and an erroneous invoice released from block to payment. If the same setup repeats, the input register and its return-to-ledger reconciliation are wrong in every cycle rather than on one invoice. Do not close until the journal agrees with the trial balance and financial-statement lines and an independent reviewer can move from balance to account, reference and this event's own source. Keep the calculation, source version, journal identifier, reconciliation result and unresolved exceptions in the same workpaper. An attached file without a stated conclusion is not review evidence.