Loading content…
Francois Roux
CEO & Co-founder
Not every valuable use of a professional tool involves a complex, multi-hour task. Some of the most consistent value comes from something quieter: the moment you need to confirm that what you already believe is correct and you need that confirmation quickly, from a reliable source.
Per Freij, CEO and accounting consultant at Freedom Stockholm AB, describes exactly this pattern in how he uses Taxxa. His cases are direct. His assessment is precise. And the use he describes is probably more common across accounting practices than the more dramatic transformation stories which makes it worth examining carefully.
Per brought two regulatory questions to Taxxa. The first: what rules apply when a company wants to store accounting records abroad? The second: what conditions must be met for a sponsorship cost to be tax-deductible in Sweden?
Neither question is exotic. Both come up in practice. Both require navigating Swedish accounting regulation, Bokföringsnämnden guidance, Skatteverket documentation, Inkomstskattelagen in a way that lands on a specific, defensible answer rather than a general overview.
Before Taxxa, Per's approach was the same as most practitioners: start with a search engine, navigate to the relevant sources, read enough to confirm or update your understanding. The process works. It is also, as he puts it, 'a bit cumbersome.'
Finding the right source and knowing you've actually arrived at the right answer takes longer than it should.
"For me it is often the case that I almost know the answer but need confirmation."
This is a precise description of a specific professional state, one that is extremely common and rarely discussed in AI product conversations. You are not starting from zero. You have domain expertise. You have a working hypothesis. What you need is either a fast confirmation or a fast correction, with a source reference you can point to if the answer matters downstream.
This is different from asking a question you don't know the answer to. The cognitive task is verification, not discovery. And it turns out Taxxa handles verification well because it doesn't just return an answer, it returns the regulatory basis for that answer. Per can read the source, confirm it applies to his situation, and move on.
Per's experience is a clean illustration of compounding time value. If this kind of confirmation task takes five minutes with Taxxa instead of fifteen minutes with a search-and-navigate workflow, and it happens a dozen times a week across a firm, the arithmetic adds up quickly without any single instance feeling dramatic.
The broader point is about where professional time goes. Senior accounting consultants spend a meaningful portion of their day on exactly this kind of task: confirming treatments, verifying regulatory positions, checking that their reading of a rule matches the source. That work is invisible on a timesheet but visible in a career. It is also, largely, the kind of work AI handles well when the source base is curated and reliable.
Per's use case works because Taxxa's Swedish regulatory knowledge base covers the ground he's searching. Bokföringsnämnden, Skatteverket, and Swedish tax law are well-represented. When he types a question, the tool isn't drawing on general internet knowledge, it's pulling from a structured set of authoritative Nordic sources.
That distinction matters more than it might appear. The difference between 'here is what the internet says about this' and 'here is what BFN guidance 2023:1 says about this, with the paragraph reference' is the difference between a starting point and a finished answer. For Per, it's the difference between twenty minutes and five.
