Interview: Dr Fabian Bachmann, tax adviser

Our guest today, tax adviser Dr Fabian Bachmann, has produced a great many procedural documentation documents using DATEV software. Nevertheless, he decided to switch – to Opti.Tax. In his view, there were good reasons for doing so.

A comparison of process documentation software: What has been Fabian Bachmann’s experience with Opti.Tax from hsp? What are the differences? The tax specialist also discusses how he the unpopular topic of procedural documentation placed with his clients.

Paul Liese: A very good morning to you all from Hamburg, as we turn to a topical issue. I’ve invited Dr Fabian Bachmann to join us today. Would you like to introduce yourself straight away? What do you do? How did you come to be here with us?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: My name is Fabian Bachmann. I’m from Würzburg. I’m 42 years old and work as a tax adviser. I first came across hsp – mainly through Kanzleiland – whilst looking into procedural documentation.

Paul Liese: Exactly. So today we’re discussing the topic of procedural documentation. This may not be the main focus for law firms at the moment, given the current coronavirus situation. Nevertheless, we both wanted to discuss a few points that were particularly interesting – not least in terms of how we came into contact with one another.

You just said that you came into contact with us via Kanzleiland – still known to many as steuerbuero.online. That’s a platform you use to exchange data with your clients. So you found out about us through your communications with Philip (Hellmig, editor’s note) and his team, didn’t you?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: Exactly, yes.

Paul Liese: Now, what was special about you – and that’s why this livestream is so interesting in the end – is that you’ve already written a great deal of procedural documentation using the DATEV solution.

Dr Fabian Bachmann: That’s right.

Paul Liese: I’d like to make two points at the outset. Firstly, we don’t have a script to work through here, nor do we have any pre-defined questions. Secondly, this isn’t about portraying one solution as better or worse than another. The aim is for Fabian, from his perspective as a consultant who has worked with both solutions, to outline their respective advantages and disadvantages, what he has identified, and what he recommends.

And I’m keen to hear what feedback you have for us – what we can work on to make the whole thing even more efficient or more user-friendly for you. Let’s get back to the first question. You’ve written procedural documentation using the DATEV solution. What motivated you to get in touch with us anyway?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: When the procedural documentation was written using DATEV and you read through it again, you found yourself wondering what on earth was actually written there. To me, the finished procedural documentation from DATEV is of little value. It’s a laborious process to work through – something I’ve now realised when comparing it to hsp; extremely laborious and time-consuming. And when you’ve invested so much time only to end up with a document that’s actually so lacking in substance, you’re left feeling rather dissatisfied.

To get straight to the point: I’ve now almost finished drawing up my procedural documentation and cash management procedures via hsp, and I have to say, it’s been a dream compared to DATEV.

Paul Liese: Right, thank you very much. Did you use the AP Comfort module at DATEV for process documentation?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: Yes, exactly.

Paul Liese: I’ve never actually worked with this solution myself, so I can’t really comment on it. However, I’ve learnt that it does offer me the option of using the ‘substitute scanning’ and ‘cash management’ features with templates.

Dr Fabian Bachmann: Exactly. I’m not yet familiar with cash management, but I do know the template for replacement scanning. There’s a great deal of repetition in DATEV, and with ‘replacement scanning’ you’ve hardly any option to enter text manually yourself. I have to say, it’s all always presented using rather vague wording.

Paul Liese: I see. The thing is, a company doesn’t just have its processes in the scanning stage, but there are many processes leading up to it, such as: Is a quotation being drawn up? How is an invoice generated based on the quotation, the purchase order and the delivery note? How is something like that documented? Is that possible?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: It isn’t possible in that way. You have to look for suitable places where there are text fields and where you can then enter information individually. Otherwise, everything is pre-determined.

Paul Liese: Right. It’s the same with all these matters, isn’t it? The initial documentation of the procedure is the most time-consuming and the longest. So what about the following years? Is it feasible to update it?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: Good question. Start by entering a new date at the top, then check which individual fields might have changed for the client. Then delete everything and re-enter the details individually.

Paul Liese: So, in summary, you see the DATEV solution as something like pre-written text blocks or a template that can only be adapted to the client’s specific circumstances to a limited extent. And it doesn’t help you to handle the process efficiently.

Dr Fabian Bachmann: Yes, exactly.

Paul Liese: Now you’ve done the same thing with our software. What was the outcome for you in that case?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: Sure, you do need to spend a bit of time getting to grips with the software and finding your way around, but that actually happens quite quickly. To begin with, there are quite a lot of points – I think I counted 100 pages at the start. Of course, I’ve whittled that down now.

And this will now serve as my internal template for future catering procedure documentation, because this was, after all, a catering business. It was the same with the till. That means that in future I’ll use the initial draft as a template and, if the scope is a bit broader, expand on certain points. But I think that’s quicker than constantly cutting down the 100-page document.

Use templates and carry them over to your next project

Paul Liese: That’s right. You can easily use them as a template from another project and carry them over to the next one.

Dr Fabian Bachmann: Exactly, for me it’s sort of like a Sample template for the catering industry for the till and for general purposes.

Paul Liese: What does integration mean to you in terms of Kanzleiland? Have you been able to make use of it there yet?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: Yes, I’ve actually already made use of it, because the client happens to be on Kanzleiland. It’s certainly a very good way to work through projects with clients in a timely manner. And it’s not as time-consuming as it used to be – that is, making phone calls or meeting in person. It’s much quicker this way.

Paul Liese: Let’s compare the two: you’ve written procedural documentation using both solutions. By what factor was it quicker with Opti.Tax?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: I can’t really say yet, after the first two, because that was my basic framework. I’d only be able to tell after the next ones, but I can already tell that with Opti.Tax I’m much quicker than I am with DATEV.

Paul Liese: What feedback do you have for us regarding what we should focus on when developing the software?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: Well, I must say I’m actually perfectly happy with things, now that I’ve written the first two reports about you. Writing them for DATEV wasn’t much fun, you see. With you, it goes quite quickly. I’ve really enjoyed the work. With DATEV, you sometimes felt on the verge of losing heart, because the programme has – and still produces – a lot of errors.

Paul Liese: With the DATEV solution, you haven’t just written one set of procedural documentation, but around 30. After 30 sets of procedural documentation, you can certainly draw some conclusions about how good – or how bad – a solution is, where the problems lie and where you need support. That’s why I find it really exciting that, after producing two documentation guides using our software, you’re now saying, „it’s a dream“, and that you feel you’re in good hands with it.

The next point I’d like to ask about here is: What are your expectations, or what has been your experience when communicating with us? After all, the software is only ever as good as the ability to communicate with the manufacturer when you have questions, need information or require any other kind of support. What’s your feedback on that?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: That was very pleasing. I’ve needed support two or three times now; I was contacted personally on the very same day and the problem was sorted. A satisfactory support service.

Paul Liese: Yes, that’s very important to me personally as well. And we’re currently trying to convey through our messaging that, with our software, you’re actually entering into a partnership. And part of a partnership is supporting one another and ensuring that, if you need help, you don’t have to wait long. After all, as a user, you’re sitting there not knowing how to sort it out, and you want to be able to reach someone quickly or get a call back. That’s why we’ve included a chat client in our software – I don’t know if you’ve used it yourself – where you can communicate very quickly and efficiently with our support team to get help.

Dr Fabian Bachmann: It’s extremely user-friendly. After all, having to go through the hassle of getting a ticket and waiting for a week or two at DATEV just to ask a simple question only holds you back from your work.

Paul Liese: Yes. Have you received any feedback from your clients regarding the documentation?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: Apart from the one client I’ve had so far – to whom I first had to explain what it’s all about and why he needs one – I haven’t received any feedback yet. I think that will come over the next six months.

Paul Liese: So you’ve written 32 documentation documents now. How do you convince the client that they need this? What’s your argument that makes the client say, „You’re right, I’ll do it“?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: On the one hand, there are the legal frameworks that already exist, but which, in some cases, have not yet been implemented. And in some cases, there are client information sheets on procedural documentation, where they can read through it all again at their leisure. But as a rule, the mere threat of a tax audit is actually enough. This isn’t being practised yet, but I reckon it will definitely start happening in Bavaria as well. I know from North Rhine-Westphalia and Thuringia that the auditors there are already harping on about procedural documentation; in Bavaria, this hasn’t happened at all so far.

Paul Liese: In your view, apart from minimising the risk of a tax audit, what is the added value for the client of having procedural documentation? Is it the case that, through the documentation, you have identified areas where the client should improve their position or where they may need to change their processes?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: Yes, absolutely. It certainly highlights problem areas or processes that are not being implemented optimally, and it provides an opportunity to identify areas for improvement.

Paul Liese: Have these findings also had an impact on you as a law firm, in terms of the provision of accounting records and the like, or processes such as how data is passed on to you from clients?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: To some extent, certainly, yes.

Added value rather than fear

Paul Liese: Right, so perhaps the argument as to why a client needs this shouldn’t focus on the fear factor (minimising the risk of a tax audit), but rather on the added value that results from it. Or is it the case that you’d say the majority of your clients for whom you’ve drawn up documentation were already perfectly prepared?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: No, there’s always room for improvement, everywhere. Especially now, with the shift towards digitalisation. All of that has to be included in the process documentation. At the moment, changes are actually taking place in all businesses. It’s a constantly evolving, changing process.

Paul Liese: You’re right to mention the constantly changing, evolving process: we’re now in a situation where tax rates will change from 1 July 2020. We’ll be releasing an update in good time – probably next week – which will allow you to document these changes in the interfaces etc. with your clients, as a supplement to the procedural documentation. After all, if there are interfaces between the merchandise management system and the till, or between the merchandise management system and financial accounting, or between the till and financial accounting – where the tax rates need to be transferred correctly – this must, of course, be checked and amended somewhere within the interface optimisation process.

I was just talking to a tax adviser yesterday about how this is actually something that needs to be included in the procedural documentation. Because if you or your client faces a VAT audit a few years down the line, and errors come to light but the documentation isn’t available to prove how the whole process was implemented in June 2020 and December 2020/January 2021, you’ll end up having even more discussions with the tax inspector than would be necessary.

Dr Fabian Bachmann: Yes, definitely. I’ll make sure to include that point in my procedural documentation, because, annoyingly, I started this on 1 July 2020. Consequently, I’ll have to include the new tax rates for that half-year.

Paul Liese: But that doesn’t matter. You’ll receive the new taxonomy and then you can migrate your project to it; once you’ve done that, you’ll have the new fields available, you can document everything, and that’ll be sorted. That’s the principle of swarm intelligence, driven by our users who give us feedback. The taxonomy is expanded and everyone uses the same standard.

Dr Fabian Bachmann: Great.

Paul Liese: Is there anything else you think is important to share with your colleagues or your audience on the subject of procedural documentation?

Dr Fabian Bachmann: Not at the moment, actually.

Paul Liese: Right. Well then, I’d like to say a big thank you for speaking so openly and for your feedback.

Dr Fabian Bachmann: I’d be happy to.

Paul Liese: I’m looking forward to the next projects with you and your team. See you soon!

Dr Fabian Bachmann: See you soon!