DESCOGEF (UEMOA / OEC-CI) common mistakes
DESCOGEF (UEMOA / OEC-CI) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing journal entries using the old SYSCOHADA account numbering and terminology (e.g., 'comptes de bilan' old classes, old VAT accounts) instead of the revised SYSCOHADA classes and intitulés, and omitting the mandatory balance sheet/income statement/notes structure changes.
Many candidates studied with pre-2017 materials or learned from practice in firms that still use legacy templates; the revised référentiel changed account codes, statement formats (bilan, compte de résultat, tableau des flux de trésorerie, notes annexes) and terminology, and candidates default to memorised habits under time pressure.
What to do instead
Rebuild a one-page 'mapping sheet' from old to revised SYSCOHADA accounts and statement lines and drill it weekly; before answering any accounting question, explicitly state which class/account code the revised référentiel requires and cite the relevant article or note. Practice full sets of états financiers SYSCOHADA révisé under timed conditions.
Treating consolidation as simple addition: summing parent and subsidiary accounts without eliminating intra-group balances, without restating to a common accounting framework, and without correctly computing goodwill (écart d'acquisition) or minority interests.
Candidates conflate 'consolidated accounts' with 'combined accounts'; the mechanics of elimination entries, homogeneous valuation, and the distinction between control, joint control and significant influence are conceptually demanding and rarely practised end-to-end.
What to do instead
Work through a standard consolidation file template (retained earnings, eliminations, goodwill computation, minority interests, equity-accounted affiliates) on at least three case studies; for each question, first identify the type of control and the method (intégration globale, proportionnelle, mise en équivalence) before computing anything.
Answering management-accounting questions by applying full costing (coûts complets) when the scenario calls for variable/direct costing or contribution margin analysis, or mixing fixed and variable costs in a break-even or make-or-buy decision.
Candidates learn one method well and apply it mechanically; they do not read the decision context (short-term pricing, capacity constraints, relevant costs) that determines which costing logic is appropriate.
What to do instead
Before computing, classify each cost as fixed/variable and relevant/irrelevant to the decision; practise a decision grid (accept/reject order, make/buy, discontinue a product) where you explicitly justify the method chosen and show the contribution margin per limiting factor.
Computing corporate income tax, VAT or withholding tax on a transaction without first establishing the territoriality, the taxable base and the applicable rate under the UEMOA/Ivorian rules, and confusing the different regimes (e.g., applying a rate from one member state to another).
Candidates memorise rates but not the conditions of application; UEMOA fiscal rules interact with national codes (e.g., CGI Côte d'Ivoire), and territoriality, exemptions and withholding obligations are the actual test points, not arithmetic.
What to do instead
For every tax question, write a three-line 'fiscal reasoning' note: (1) is the operation within scope/territory? (2) what is the taxable base after deductions/exemptions? (3) which rate and which declarative obligation apply? Then compute. Keep a table of the main rates and regimes per member state you are examined on.
Confusing OHADA company-law rules with French or local commercial law: e.g., misstating SA/SARL capital minimums, governance thresholds, or the rules on dissolution, transformation and mergers under the Acte uniforme relatif au droit des sociétés commerciales.
Candidates rely on general business-law knowledge from other jurisdictions or outdated OHADA texts; the revised Acte uniforme (2014) changed several thresholds, and the exam expects precise article-level knowledge.
What to do instead
Build a comparison table of the main OHADA company forms (SARL, SA, SAS, SNC, GIE) with capital, governance, decision thresholds and transformation rules, citing the relevant articles of the Acte uniforme. Verify each figure against the current text before the exam.
Answering audit questions by describing procedures generically ('we will check the accounts') rather than linking risk assessment to specific assertions, materiality and the appropriate ISA (e.g., ISA 315, 330, 500, 700) responses.
Candidates know audit vocabulary but not the risk-based logic; they skip the step of identifying the assertion at risk (existence, completeness, valuation) before selecting a procedure.
What to do instead
Practise the chain: significant risk → assertion affected → materiality threshold → specific substantive/control procedure → evidence expected. For each ISA question, name the standard and the assertion it addresses before writing the answer.
Computing NPV, IRR or cost of capital using inconsistent cash-flow definitions: mixing nominal and real rates, pre-tax and post-tax cash flows, or forgetting working-capital and terminal-value adjustments.
Candidates focus on the formula and the discounting arithmetic and neglect the definitional consistency that is the actual source of error in corporate-finance questions.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed checklist before any valuation: nominal vs real, pre- vs post-tax, include/exclude working capital, terminal value assumptions. State the assumptions explicitly in the answer and reconcile the discount rate with the cash-flow definition used.
Producing a financial-analysis answer that lists ratios without interpretation: presenting liquidity, solvency and profitability ratios without linking them to the company's business model, sector benchmarks or the question's diagnostic purpose.
Candidates learn ratio formulas but not the diagnostic narrative; the exam rewards the interpretation and the causal explanation, not the computation alone.
What to do instead
Structure each analysis as: ratio → observed value → comparison (sector/prior year/budget) → cause → consequence → recommendation. Practise writing short diagnostic paragraphs rather than tables of numbers.
Treating professional ethics as abstract principles: answering independence, confidentiality or conflict-of-interest questions without applying the specific threats-and-safeguards framework and without identifying the concrete threat (self-interest, self-review, advocacy, familiarity, intimidation).
Candidates see ethics as 'common sense' and skip the structured code-of-ethics reasoning; the exam expects the IESBA/OHADA professional-code framework applied to the facts.
What to do instead
For every ethics scenario, name the threat category, the principle at stake (integrity, objectivity, confidentiality, professional competence, professional behaviour), the safeguards available, and the decision. Drill short scenarios until the framework is automatic.
Underestimating the systems/risk/assurance domain: answering IT and internal-control questions with generic 'we will secure the system' statements, and failing to distinguish preventive from detective controls, or IT general controls from application controls.
Candidates from accounting backgrounds treat this domain as peripheral and lack the vocabulary to describe control environments, segregation of duties and IT risk precisely.
What to do instead
Learn the control taxonomy (preventive/detective/corrective; ITGC vs application controls; segregation of duties) and practise describing a control environment for a concrete process (purchases, payroll, inventory) with named controls and the risk each mitigates.