# The Potential of Documentary Film – An Interview with Lars Rinkewitz
### !hsp Podcast Banner Button(../../wp-content/uploads/2021/01/hsp-Podcast-Banner-Button.jpg)(../../wp-content/uploads/2020/05/rinkewitzpodcastfinal.mp3)

## In an interview with Lars Rinkewitz from Ecovis KSO

A tedious chore or an exciting opportunity? Opinions on procedural documentation vary widely amongst his clients, according to tax adviser Lars Rinkewitz of the **[ECOVIS KSO](https://www.ecovis.com/duesseldorf-koeln/)**. The business graduate knows from experience that his clients do not exactly jump for joy when it comes to the requirements and requests of the authorities.

In an interview with Paul Liese, Lars Rinkewitz talks about his experiences and explains whether and how his clients [Procedural documentation](../../en/process-documentation-2/index.md) accept. It is particularly important to him that he offers his clients genuine added value. And he has noticed that some clients are simply glad when the procedural documentation is complete, whilst others always want to know more and make further improvements.

**Paul Liese: We’re visiting ECOVIS KSO Treuhand- und Steuerberatungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG in Düsseldorf today, and we’ll be talking to Thomas Müller, Lars Rinkewitz and, later on, Alexander Himmelmann about process documentation. When did you first start looking into this topic?**

Lars Rinkewitz: We started doing this last year. I’ve been with ECOVIS KSO since 1 April as the first member of the team – a newly formed team. That’s when we really got things off the ground; we built on what had been done previously and ultimately developed it significantly further.

**Paul Liese: What were people’s expectations when you first started this?**

Lars Rinkewitz: On the one hand, the expectation was that we would meet the mandatory requirements set by the tax authorities with regard to procedural documentation. On the other hand, we always wanted to deliver added value for our clients. In other words, we particularly wanted to ensure that there was real added value for our clients. That we weren’t just fulfilling a requirement, but that the client would benefit from it in terms of efficiency. That we take a comprehensive look at all the processes, optimise them, and can offer genuine support in this way, thereby living up to our role as advisers.

**Paul Liese: And then did the clients snap up the product? Or were there any objections?**

Lars Rinkewitz: Of course, there were also objections, particularly regarding the fulfilment of an additional obligation that also costs money. Ultimately, we do this for a fee, of course. This means that, at the end of the day, we will also issue an invoice for our fees. But a legal obligation imposed by the tax authorities must be fulfilled. Apart from the fee – what we ultimately receive – the biggest obstacle is the extra workload for the client, as it is always a team effort. We cannot prepare procedural documentation for our clients on our own; we are reliant on the client’s cooperation. The client must provide information, they must familiarise themselves with their own structures, and are then, of course, taken away from their own day-to-day business. This means they must set aside time, may need to release staff for this purpose, and must carry out additional tasks. That has been yet another obstacle. Another obstacle was that, right at the start, our clients had no idea what to expect – so we had to overcome their reluctance to embrace something new. We were then able to address this through discussions, by demonstrating how it works, and by offering support, but that was, of course, also a major challenge.

**Paul Liese: What was the biggest obstacle when it came to procedural documentation? What was the biggest challenge that had to be overcome – not in terms of obstacles for the client, but in general terms, regarding methodology and implementation?**

Lars Rinkewitz: From an operational perspective, the biggest obstacle is always getting hold of the information. Ultimately, process documentation relies on information being provided by the business owner and staff. And compiling this information in a timely, accurate and plausible manner – in its entirety – is the biggest obstacle of all. Once we have the information, everything works and runs smoothly. But getting hold of that information in the first place is the biggest obstacle.

## The tax adviser as a motivator

**Paul Liese: So what did you do to get round this obstacle?**

Lars Rinkewitz: We now see ourselves as facilitators in this regard. At the start, we said we’d work on a checklist basis, so that we’d simply go through the checklists with the client or hand them over to the client and collect the information. But these days, we see ourselves more as facilitators, as drivers who guide the client and take them by the hand. To say: „We need this and that, and this information is absolutely essential. How do you go about getting this information, dear client?“ It’s about close guidance and facilitation – not leaving them to their own devices; that’s how we get it done together.

**Paul Liese: Well, actually, the two Ms: moderation and motivation.**

Lars Rinkewitz: Correct.

**Paul Liese: And has drawing up the procedural documentation for the client added value to the projects you’ve carried out so far?**

Lars Rinkewitz: Definitely. The added value comes from the fact that the entrepreneur is perhaps, for the very first time, taking a proper look at their business. In other words, they’re not just focusing on operational processes and so on, but are examining the structure of the business itself. With the processes. They may be seeing for the first time what’s actually going on. What are we actually doing? Are we perhaps doing the same work twice or three times over? Couldn’t we structure or organise this differently? We have clients who say: „We’re already well organised, but it’s nice to have a third party take a look at things. To have someone with a professional eye simply analyse the processes again and tell us how we can do things better.“ We also find time and again that we uncover risks. Data protection, for example, is a very important issue. There are still many entrepreneurs and companies that haven’t yet reached the stage where one can say that all data protection requirements have been met. And that’s where we can offer assistance. Furthermore, we can also identify risks relating to the internal control system. We advise that certain controls need to be introduced, security policies put in place, access and authorisation rules established, and an authorisation scheme for access to the IT system, the server and so on. Furthermore, we can also implement entirely new processes to perhaps create new structures. All of this together offers added value for the client, ensuring that they not only fulfil these legal obligations but also genuinely gain something from the process that is constantly evolving.

**Paul Liese: When clients receive the procedural documentation from you at the end – whether as a document, a PDF or whatever – are most clients generally pleased and happy with the findings, or do they simply take note of it, file it away and use it to fulfil legal obligations or tax authority regulations?**

Lars Rinkewitz: It varies completely. Some are simply glad that it’s over. Others just file it away and wipe the beads of sweat from their foreheads. Others are genuinely quite pleased and continue to engage with the process afterwards. The procedural documentation is finalised, after which questions are still asked: Can we add one or two things for the next revision of the procedural documentation? Can we expand it? Can we perhaps go beyond the procedural documentation and delve further into the internal control system, documenting even more? Can we develop work instructions from this? Could we perhaps add a text-based compliance management system on top of it, particularly in larger organisations? Reactions therefore vary greatly. And it remains exciting to see how this area develops and what the future holds.

**Paul Liese: But wasn’t there a single client who said, „It wasn’t worth it; I wish I’d never done it“?**

Lars Rinkewitz: No, I haven’t heard that statement yet.

**Paul Liese: That’s good, isn’t it? You’re now using software to create the procedural documentation – I don’t want to go into too much detail about that just yet. But what role does the software manufacturer play, in your view? And how are you supported?**

Lars Rinkewitz: The software helps us in several ways. In any case, the software provides us with a clearly defined taxonomy, which gives us a roadmap. It shows us what elements are necessary and important for process documentation. The software also helps us by meaning we don’t have to start from scratch with just any old Word document. It enables us to create the procedural documentation itself in an audit-proof manner. The tax authorities place great emphasis on audit compliance, particularly with regard to the audit compliance of our own invoices – which must be issued and filed in an audit-compliant manner – as well as the audit compliance of our cash book records, but also the audit-proof nature of the creation of procedural documentation, so that it can be traced. And of course, it is essential that this is handled using software, and that’s where the software helps us immensely. Without this software, we simply wouldn’t be able to offer this service at all.

## Opti.Tax – fast and effective

**Paul Liese: That’s exactly what I was about to ask. If you look back now at the past year, at the projects you’ve worked on, and imagine you’d done them using a word processor rather than the software, would that have been feasible?**

Lars Rinkewitz: It might have been feasible with a great deal, great deal, great deal more effort, but certainly not to the full extent, with the same speed or effectiveness, and – particularly in terms of audit compliance – not with the assurance of a secure outcome in the end. That would have been impossible.

**Paul Liese: Our viewers are also always keen to know whether something like this has ever been presented during a tax audit. And if so, what was the outcome?**

Lars Rinkewitz: We’ve seen this situation before. One tax inspector said: „That’s fine and will be accepted as it stands.“ Of course, you have to bear in mind that different tax inspectors may have different views, because the legal framework isn’t set out in such rigid terms. But the message we’ve received from the tax inspectors is that this is fine, it’s accepted as it stands, and there are no objections. And for us, that’s a clear and positive sign that what we’re doing – and how we’re doing it – is right and good.

**Paul Liese: Now, things are rather unique here in North Rhine-Westphalia. You have this five-page questionnaire just for procedural documentation in tax audits. There are then a great many boxes to tick. This means that the quality standards for procedural documentation are particularly high here in this federal state. That’s why I think it’s good that this cautious statement has been made. You can’t really expect any more from the tax authorities. They’re not going to give it a top mark, but they’ll say: „That’s fine. It’s accepted. Everything’s in there.“ What advice would you give to other teams who are now about to tackle this issue, perhaps as part of a strategy or because clients are approaching them about it? Is there any advice you’d like to pass on to your colleagues?**

Lars Rinkewitz: One strong recommendation is not to tackle this issue as an afterthought or on the side. You really do need to focus on it. In our experience, if you take staff away to set aside, say, 20 % of their time to tackle the issue of procedural documentation, it simply doesn’t work. Ultimately, you have to focus on this: we have a team here that deals exclusively with process documentation, text compliance, POS systems and GoBD. This is essential in order to approach the issue properly and tackle it effectively. Because anything else is doomed to failure – firstly to gain the experience needed to manage the whole process, and secondly to have the practical know-how to offer the client added value. After all, for us consultants, it shouldn’t ultimately be just about the day-to-day processing, but about thinking ahead, providing advice and choosing an approach that actually benefits the client. And that can’t be done on the side; it can only be done full-time.

**Paul Liese: Yes, that’s lovely. Thank you very much for the interview.**

Lars Rinkewitz: I’d be happy to.

**Paul Liese: Do you have any more questions for me?**

Lars Rinkewitz: Not at the moment.