Two Tax Filings That Should Have Matched, and Did Not

The situation

'Our accountant says the numbers we filed do not match what the seller filed for the same sale, how is that even possible when we both signed the same agreement?' Rodrigo asked when he called our office roughly eight months after closing on an auto service franchise resale in Niagara Falls, sounding more confused than alarmed at first. He and his partner, Cameron, had bought the business from Chelsea for a price in the mid six figures, financed partly through their own savings built up over several years and partly through a small business loan secured against the shop's equipment.

Rodrigo had spent years working as an auto body technician for other shops before deciding he wanted to run his own operation rather than continue working for someone else's bottom line, and Cameron, who worked as a transit operator on a rotating shift schedule, had handled most of the financial side of the search for a business to buy, spending evenings and days off reviewing listings and financial statements. The franchise resale appealed to both of them because it came with an established client base built up over years, a lease already in place with reasonable terms remaining, and a purchase agreement Chelsea's lawyer had prepared that seemed thorough and complete at the time everyone signed it.

The purchase agreement did include a purchase price allocation, breaking the total price down between the shop's equipment, its goodwill as an ongoing business with a client base and franchise standing, and a smaller amount attributed to inventory on hand at the date of closing. That allocation matters more than most buyers realize going into a deal, because it determines how much tax each side pays and on what basis: equipment and inventory are treated differently than goodwill for both income tax and HST purposes, and buyer and seller are each expected, as a matter of course, to file consistently with the same agreed allocation rather than each picking whatever treats their own numbers most favourably.

The problem surfaced eight months later, when Rodrigo and Cameron's accountant prepared their year-end filing using the allocation set out in the purchase agreement, and the tax authority's system flagged a mismatch against what Chelsea's own accountant had reported for the very same transaction. The two filings simply did not agree on how much of the total price had been allocated to equipment versus goodwill, and the discrepancy was large enough that neither side's accountant could wave it away as rounding or a simple data-entry typo.

The gap nobody had noticed

We started by pulling the closing documents and comparing them line by line against both accountants' filings. The purchase agreement itself was internally consistent: one allocation, agreed and signed by both Chelsea and Rodrigo and Cameron before closing. The mismatch was not in the agreement. It was in what happened after closing, when each side's own accountant prepared filings independently based on different source documents.

Chelsea's accountant had worked from an earlier draft allocation that had circulated during negotiations, before the final adjustment that shifted a meaningful amount from equipment to goodwill to reflect a piece of shop equipment that turned out to be leased rather than owned and was removed from the sale at the last minute. That adjustment had been correctly reflected in the final, signed purchase agreement, but the email confirming it to Chelsea's accountant had apparently never been sent, or had been sent and missed.

Rodrigo and Cameron's own accountant, working from the signed agreement, had filed correctly based on the final numbers. The result was two technically defensible filings that simply did not match each other, because they were built from two different versions of the same negotiation. Neither buyer nor seller had done anything wrong in isolation, but the tax authority's systems compare related filings and flag exactly this kind of inconsistency for review.

The deeper issue was that nobody, on either side, had actually reconciled the final purchase price down to its components after the last-minute equipment adjustment. The lawyers had updated the agreement correctly. The accountants had each built their own working file from whatever version of the deal they had last seen. No single person had checked, after closing, that the numbers actually tied out from the signed agreement through to both sets of tax filings, which is exactly the kind of gap that only shows up once a system on one side flags it.

That gap matters more than a simple bookkeeping oversight would suggest. When a tax authority's systems flag two related filings that do not agree, the review that follows is not automatically limited to the specific figure that triggered it. An unexplained allocation mismatch can prompt a closer look at the whole transaction, on both sides, well after the deal itself has closed and everyone involved has moved on to running the business. Left unexplained long enough, what started as a missed email confirming a last-minute adjustment could have turned into a formal reassessment, interest charges on whichever side's filing was found wanting, and a dispute between two people who had otherwise handled the sale in good faith and never meant to disagree about anything.

What we did

1. Gathered every version of the allocation. We collected the original letter of intent, each draft purchase agreement exchanged during negotiations, the final signed agreement, and both accountants' working files, to see exactly where the numbers diverged rather than guessing based on the final mismatch alone. This gave us a complete paper trail instead of two disconnected explanations, and let us date each version precisely enough to see exactly when the divergence happened.
2. Rebuilt the accounting from the signed agreement forward. Working with Rodrigo and Cameron's accountant, we reconstructed the correct allocation as it stood in the final, signed purchase agreement, confirming the equipment removed from the sale had been properly excluded and the goodwill figure adjusted to account for it. This produced a single, defensible set of numbers to work from going forward.
3. Contacted Chelsea and her accountant directly. Rather than leaving the two sides to sort out a shared problem separately and risk two more mismatched narratives, we reached out to explain what our review had found: that Chelsea's filing appeared to rely on an outdated draft rather than the agreement she had actually signed. Chelsea's accountant confirmed, once shown the timeline side by side, that the final adjustment email had indeed never reached their file.
4. Confirmed both sides agreed on the corrected figures. We prepared a short written confirmation, signed by both Chelsea and Rodrigo and Cameron, restating the final allocation exactly as it appeared in the signed purchase agreement, so that both accountants would be working from an identical, agreed reference document going forward rather than relying on memory, a verbal understanding, or whichever old draft happened to still be open on their desktop.
5. Coordinated an amended filing for the seller. Chelsea's accountant prepared an amended filing to bring her reporting into line with the actual signed allocation, which was the simpler correction of the two since Rodrigo and Cameron's original filing had already reflected the right numbers and did not need to be refiled at all, only confirmed as accurate against the signed agreement.
6. Documented the correction for the buyer's own file. Even though Rodrigo and Cameron's filing turned out to be correct, we prepared a short memo for their records explaining the discrepancy and its resolution, so that if the tax authority raised further questions later, there would be a clear, contemporaneous explanation rather than a scramble to reconstruct events a year or two after the fact, once memories had faded and inboxes had been cleared out.
7. Followed up to confirm the flag was cleared. We confirmed with both accountants once the amended filing had been processed that the mismatch flag was resolved on the tax authority's end, closing the loop rather than assuming the correction alone was enough, and kept written confirmation of that closure in Rodrigo and Cameron's file alongside the rest of the documentation.

The outcome

The mismatch was resolved without either side facing a penalty or a formal audit, which was not guaranteed at the outset given how these flags can sometimes escalate if left unexplained for too long. Chelsea's amended filing brought her reporting into line with the allocation actually agreed in the signed purchase agreement, and Rodrigo and Cameron's original filing was confirmed correct exactly as it stood, meaning no further work was needed on their end beyond the short memo documenting what had happened and why.

The process took about two months from Rodrigo's first call to our office to confirmation that the flag had fully cleared, most of that time spent gathering documents and coordinating between two accountants who had never actually spoken to each other directly before the discrepancy surfaced and forced the introduction. Chelsea bore the cost of her accountant's amended filing and the modest professional fees that came with it, a comparatively small expense relative to the risk of an unresolved mismatch sitting on record with the tax authority indefinitely, inviting closer scrutiny of both parties' filings down the road.

For Rodrigo and Cameron, the outcome quietly confirmed something they had done right without ever realizing it at the time: their accountant had worked strictly from the final signed agreement rather than any earlier negotiating draft, which is exactly why their own filing needed no correction at all once the source of the mismatch was traced. The experience left them with a clear, agreed written record of the deal's final numbers, something neither side had thought to formalize separately at the time of closing but was glad to have once a routine year-end filing turned into a question neither accountant could answer on the spot.

Chelsea, for her part, said afterward that she wished her accountant had simply called Rodrigo and Cameron's side directly the moment the last-minute equipment adjustment was made, rather than assuming the update would reach everyone who needed it. It was a small missed step that cost two months and a modest amendment fee to fix, rather than anything larger, but it was a reminder that a signed agreement only protects everyone relying on it if the people preparing tax filings actually see the final version.

What you can learn from this