ITAA Bekwaamheidsexamen Accountant common mistakes
ITAA Bekwaamheidsexamen Accountant · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing journal entries and year-end adjustments without first checking that debits and credits balance and that the effect on the balance sheet and profit and loss account is stated in both directions.
Candidates practise entries in isolation and, under time pressure, post the amount to the correct account but on the wrong side, or forget the counterpart entry in a provision or accrual. The double-entry reflex has not been automated, so the error is only discovered later when the balance sheet does not balance.
What to do instead
Before moving on from every entry, state aloud or in the margin the two accounts affected, the direction (debit/credit) and the resulting effect on equity and result. Finish each case by proving the trial balance and reconciling the movement in equity to the reported result. Build a one-page checklist of recurring counterpart entries (accruals, deferred income, depreciation, provisions) and rehearse it on past papers.
Treating the legal form of a transaction as decisive and classifying it accordingly, instead of applying the substance-over-form principle and the relevant recognition criteria.
The exam narrative is deliberately written so that the legal label (sale, lease, loan, dividend) points to the wrong accounting treatment. Candidates recognise the familiar label and stop analysing, because they have memorised treatments per transaction type rather than the conceptual framework criteria.
What to do instead
For every transaction, explicitly answer three questions in writing: has an asset or liability arisen, has control passed, and how does the arrangement affect risks and rewards? Then justify the chosen treatment by reference to the recognition and derecognition criteria. Practise classifying borderline cases (sale-and-repurchase, factoring, operating versus finance lease) and write the substance argument in two sentences before calculating.
Producing calculations without a documented audit trail: no source reference, no rounding convention, no reconciliation to the trial balance or prior-year figures, and no cross-check of the final number.
Candidates focus on reaching the number and treat documentation as presentation. Under exam pressure they skip the reconciliation step, so a transposition or a mis-keyed figure survives into the final answer and cannot be traced back when reviewing.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed working-paper format: purpose, source document and reference, computation with units and rounding stated, cross-check, conclusion. Reconcile every schedule to the trial balance total or to the prior-year closing balance before using it. Reserve the last minutes for a reverse calculation (recompute the result from the balance sheet movement) rather than re-reading the answer.
Answering the tax question with the general rate and the main rule only, omitting the specific conditions, thresholds, time limits and formal requirements that the question actually tests.
Candidates learn tax by headline rates and broad regimes, and the exam rewards precision on conditions (holding periods, participation thresholds, substance requirements, filing deadlines). The familiar general rule feels sufficient, so the qualifying conditions are never checked.
What to do instead
For each regime, build a one-page card listing the legal basis, the taxpayer, the object, the rate or exemption, and every condition with its threshold and time limit. In the exam, tick each condition against the facts before computing. Where a condition fails, state the consequence and the alternative regime rather than forcing the preferred treatment.
Giving advice on the basis of the Netherlands-only position without checking the treaty or EU dimension, and without checking whether the national rule is compatible with EU law.
The facts often involve a cross-border element (foreign shareholder, foreign permanent establishment, migrant taxpayer) that is easy to overlook when the domestic rule looks straightforward. Candidates also forget that a bilateral treaty or an EU freedom may override or qualify the national outcome.
What to do instead
Before answering any tax case, run a fixed three-step screen: which jurisdictions and persons are involved, does a tax treaty allocate the taxing right and what method applies, and is there an EU law issue (establishment, free movement of capital, parent-subsidiary, interest and royalties)? State the order of precedence explicitly: national law, treaty, EU law, and note where the outcome differs per step.
Advising on a structure without testing it against anti-abuse provisions, substance requirements and the risk of requalification, and without weighing the non-tax consequences.
Candidates identify the tax saving and stop, because the technical rule is satisfied on paper. They underestimate that the exam expects the adviser to flag abuse doctrines, beneficial ownership, transfer pricing at arm's length, and commercial and liability consequences of the chosen vehicle.
What to do instead
After every recommendation, write a short risk paragraph: which anti-abuse rule or doctrine could apply, what substance and documentation is needed, what the transfer pricing position is, and what happens if the tax authority requalifies. Include at least one non-tax consideration (liability, financing, exit) and a fallback structure. Practise by taking a proposed structure and listing three ways it could fail.
Ignoring the question's instruction words and the required output: computing where an opinion was asked, describing where a journal entry was asked, or omitting the explicit conclusion and the addressee.
Candidates read the topic and start writing from the first fact, because the subject matter is familiar. The verb (advise, calculate, identify, discuss, draft) and the requested deliverable (memo, entry, schedule) determine the marking, and this mismatch loses marks even when the technical content is correct.
What to do instead
Underline the instruction verb, the addressee and the deliverable in the question before starting. Write the skeleton of the required output first (heading, conclusion, reasoning, computation, caveats) and fill it in. End every advisory answer with an explicit conclusion addressed to the named person, and check that each part of a multi-part question has a visibly labelled answer.
Managing time badly: over-investing in the first case, leaving the advisory question or the final sub-question untouched, and not reserving time to check figures.
The first case is usually the most familiar, and candidates keep polishing it to feel safe. Advisory questions feel open-ended and are deferred until the end, when there is no time left, so a whole high-weight component is lost.
What to do instead
Before starting, allocate minutes per question in proportion to marks and write the allocation on the answer sheet. Impose a hard stop per question and move on with a note to return. Answer the advisory question early with a structured skeleton even if incomplete, since structured partial answers score better than blank ones. Keep the last ten per cent of the time for checking computations and conclusions.
Presenting figures and advice without stated assumptions, without units and rounding, and without noting the sensitivity of the outcome to the key assumption.
Candidates treat assumptions as weakness and hide them, or assume the examiner shares their interpretation of an ambiguous fact. Where a fact is genuinely missing, they either invent a number silently or abandon the question.
What to do instead
State assumptions explicitly at the top of the answer, numbered, with the reason and the effect if the assumption is wrong. Always give currency, period and rounding. Where a fact is missing, choose a reasonable value, label it as an assumption, and show how the conclusion changes if it moves. Close the advice with the two or three assumptions the recommendation depends on most.
Quoting a rule, rate or threshold from memory without citing its basis, and continuing to rely on it when the facts show it does not apply or has been amended.
Candidates revise from summaries and remember a figure without its conditions or effective date. In the exam the facts are often designed to sit just outside the remembered rule, and the candidate applies the headline figure anyway rather than re-reading the conditions.
What to do instead
Attach to every rule you cite its legal basis (act and article, or standard and paragraph) and its effective date, and verify the conditions against the facts line by line before computing. If you cannot recall the basis with confidence, say so, state the principle you are applying, and show the computation conditionally. Maintain a personal list of figures you have previously misremembered and re-check those first.