--- title: "Compare RO e-TVA data with accounting records line by line | R&D COPILOT" lang: en canonical: https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-prefilled-accounting-comparison/ content_version: 281529c1d09cc1aa686154641178d83e26428f35acabb4dddbd2e4ee7d6528d0 contact: https://rdcopilot.com/contact/ --- [RDC](https://rdcopilot.com/) [Insights](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/)e-TVA e-TVADecision guide # Compare RO e-TVA data with accounting records line by line RO e-TVA reconciliation becomes useful when the team can identify which records and categories produced each total. Comparing two headline amounts without their periods, sources and mapping can create an unexplained difference even when the underlying records are understandable. By R&D COPILOT6 October 20265 min read In this guide 1. [Compare like with like before investigating a difference](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-prefilled-accounting-comparison/#guide-section-1) 2. [Preserve the two sides separately](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-prefilled-accounting-comparison/#guide-section-2) 3. [Agree the mapping with the accountant](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-prefilled-accounting-comparison/#guide-section-3) 4. [Drill from a total into its contributors](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-prefilled-accounting-comparison/#guide-section-4) 5. [Separate access and accounting decisions](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-prefilled-accounting-comparison/#guide-section-5) 6. [Evaluate the reconciliation method](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-prefilled-accounting-comparison/#guide-section-6) 7. [Build a transparent comparison workflow](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-prefilled-accounting-comparison/#guide-section-7) [Sources & inspiration](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-prefilled-accounting-comparison/#guide-sources) ## Compare like with like before investigating a difference Begin with authorized official data and a defined accounting snapshot for the same company. The accountant determines the categories and treatment to compare. The software should make this mapping visible, so a reviewer can challenge an assumption rather than accept an opaque result. Write the comparison question before importing files: which company, which period and which measure are being examined? Confirm whether the available official input is a total, a category breakdown or a more detailed report. The comparison should reflect the level of evidence actually available on both sides. ## Preserve the two sides separately Keep the retrieved official document or data together with its retrieval date and company context. Preserve the accounting export in its original form as well. Normalized comparison data should link back to both sources. Do not overwrite one side to make it align with the other. Corrections to accounting records follow the accountant's process. The comparison should record what was observed at a particular time and show any later version as a separate run. Check file completeness before calculation. Record row counts and source control totals where these are available, then flag unreadable values or interrupted imports. A blank field, a reported zero and a missing record require distinct handling; converting all three to zero can make a technically tidy result misleading. ## Agree the mapping with the accountant A useful comparison needs explicit period rules, categories and included records. Explain which accounting fields contribute to each comparison line. Excluded records should have reasons visible to reviewers. ANAF's e-TVA material provides the official workflow context, but the exact current records and applicable instructions need checking for the case. Avoid treating an older brochure as proof of unchanged deadlines or obligations. The engineering scope can remain focused on data retrieval, mapping and explainable differences. Keep the mapping as a reviewed configuration with a version and an owner. For every comparison category, identify the source fields and transformation rules used. When a new accounting code appears, send it for mapping review instead of automatically assigning it to a category with a similar description. ## Drill from a total into its contributors Each difference should open the records that contributed to the two sides, where those details are available. Show amount, category, relevant date and source reference. If one source provides only an aggregate, make that limitation clear in the review workspace rather than manufacturing a transaction-level explanation. Provide filters that help isolate timing, classification and missing-document questions. A suggested explanation should remain a hypothesis until the accountant verifies it. Attach the evidence and decision to the difference so another reviewer can follow the investigation. Show included and excluded contributors side by side when investigating a line. A reviewer should be able to see whether the difference arises inside the selected population or because a record was left outside it. Preserve the reason for exclusion and the rule version that produced the decision. ## Separate access and accounting decisions Authorized retrieval, comparison preparation and acceptance of an explanation are different actions. Assign permissions by company and role. Restrict downloaded evidence and exports with the same care as the live dashboard. A comparison tool should not silently change accounting records or send an official response when somebody marks a difference as understood. Those actions need their own approved workflow. Keep credentials in controlled configuration and avoid full financial payloads in technical logs. An operator preparing files may need different rights from the accountant accepting the mapping. Separate those roles and confirm company membership at retrieval and export. If a user changes the company filter, the application must check access again rather than relying on the company that was selected when the session began. ## Evaluate the reconciliation method Use a checked period and include differences whose causes the team already understands. Verify that the mapping reproduces the agreed comparison and that each record can be traced back to its source. Test changed period filters and duplicate source records. Measure unexplained differences, records excluded without a reason and time to locate supporting evidence. Distinguish a difference explained by timing from a source-data correction. Success means the accountant can inspect and reproduce the comparison, including the unresolved portion. Include an intentionally unmapped code, a repeated input file and a decimal-format variation in the test collection. The system should identify each condition clearly and preserve the original values. A comparison that reaches zero by silently discarding unreadable records has not passed the acceptance test. - Confirm company, period and the measure being compared. - Check source completeness and preserve original files. - Approve the mapping and identify unmapped records. - Trace included and excluded amounts to their source references. - Repeat the calculation and test duplicate and unreadable inputs. ## Build a transparent comparison workflow RDC can implement authorized data intake, accounting mapping, line-level comparisons and a review queue for e-TVA differences. We begin with the records and supported interfaces available to your team. Bring redacted official data, an accounting export and the accountant's current comparison method. The proposal can define source versions, access roles and acceptance tests. We build the evidence and workflow around the specialist's decisions, with additional periods or data sources added after their mappings are checked. Agree deployment around the actual intake method, whether authorised retrieval or controlled import of files supplied by the team. For EU-hosted or company-managed operation, specify credential ownership, storage access and recovery. The first release should produce one reviewed mapping and a repeatable comparison before adding further company configurations. Inside the product ## e-TVA [![VAT reconciliation desk comparing own records and authority amounts.](https://etva.rdcopilot.com/product-demos/etva/gallery-overview-en.png)View full size](https://etva.rdcopilot.com/product-demos/etva/gallery-overview-en.png) VAT reconciliation desk comparing own records and authority amounts. [![VAT reference S-126 with an explanation recorded and the remaining review balance.](https://etva.rdcopilot.com/product-demos/etva/gallery-detail-en.png)View full size](https://etva.rdcopilot.com/product-demos/etva/gallery-detail-en.png) VAT reference S-126 with an explanation recorded and the remaining review balance. Swipe or use the arrows to explore. Image 1 of 2 Follow the references ## Sources & inspiration ### [ReconFlow](https://devpost.com/software/reconflow) Devpost project by Aditya Jain, Rachit Bhatia, Nisarg Gandhi Reconciliation with review of exceptions. This independently created project is credited as inspiration. The workflow and implementation guidance in this article are RDC’s analysis. - [ANAF: RO e-TVA brochure 2025](https://static.anaf.ro/static/10/Anaf/AsistentaContribuabili_r/BrosuraRoeTVA2025.pdf) Put the guide to work ## Start with your workflow. Tell us what your team needs to do, which systems are involved and where the current process slows down. [Discuss your project](https://rdcopilot.com/contact/?product=etva) [Explore e-TVA](https://etva.rdcopilot.com/en/products/etva/) e-TVA ## Keep exploring. [All guides](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/) Workflow ### [Keep a dated record of the e-TVA data you compared](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-data-snapshot-audit/) Preserve dated e-TVA source files, accounting exports and mapping versions so reviewers can reconstruct an earlier comparison and explain later changes. [Read guide](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-data-snapshot-audit/) How-to guide ### [Turn an e-TVA difference into a reviewable explanation](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-differences-review-workflow/) Turn e-TVA differences into owned investigations with source evidence, testable hypotheses and clear review decisions, keeping corrections separately authorised. [Read guide](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-differences-review-workflow/)