What sources does Taxxa search?

Taxxa searches a continuously updated collection of more than one million pages from tax authorities, government publications, legislation and case law across the European jurisdictions it covers. Every response cites the underlying material, so a professional can inspect the rule, its jurisdiction and whether it is current before relying on the result.

Can Taxxa work with a team’s own documents?

Yes. Research can combine the public knowledge base with a team’s own PDF, DOCX, CSV and TXT files in one workspace. That makes it possible to compare a client document with the relevant guidance, trace a conclusion to its source and prepare a draft without losing the evidence that supports it.

Who is Taxxa built for?

Accountants, auditors, tax advisors, payroll specialists, bookkeepers and advisory teams working across European jurisdictions. Shared workspaces keep research available to colleagues, and citations make review easier.

Where is customer data stored, and is it used to train models?

Customer data stays in the European Union and is never used to train language models.

Does Taxxa replace professional judgement?

No. Taxxa is a research and drafting workspace. It helps professionals reach an informed starting point faster; the professional still reviews the evidence and makes the final decision. It does not file returns, post bookkeeping entries or give legal advice.

NorwayFinanstilsynet

Audit firm fined 500,000 kroner over fraud-risk and revenue failures

Finanstilsynet fined ES Revisjon AS 500,000 kroner for gross breaches in four 2025 audits: deficient fraud-risk and revenue work plus years of weak cyclical inspections.

By Taxxa AI OyPublished 14 October 2026

Audit

Industry: Accounting, bookkeeping and auditing activities; tax consultancy

Finanstilsynet has fined the Harstad audit firm ES Revisjon AS 500 000 kronerFinanstilsynet after finding extensive breaches of the Auditors Act (revisorloven)Finanstilsynet in the audits of four companiesFinanstilsynet. The inspection showed that the firm had not carried out the necessary audit procedures for fraud riskFinanstilsynet and the audit of revenueFinanstilsynet, had not exercised sufficient professional scepticismFinanstilsynet, and had not obtained sufficient and appropriate audit evidenceFinanstilsynet. Over several years the firm had also failed to carry out satisfactory cyclical engagement inspectionsFinanstilsynet.

The supervision started after DnR reported two engagement-responsible auditors at the firm in a letter dated 15 December 2025Finanstilsynet, concluding that there were deficiencies in audit performance that could give reasonable grounds to consider withdrawing their approval as auditorsFinanstilsynet. Finanstilsynet controlled selected areas of two 2026 audit engagements for each of the two auditors, for the 2025 financial year, and met the firm on 29 June 2026Finanstilsynet. After an overall assessment Finanstilsynet concluded that the two auditors' approvals should not be withdrawnFinanstilsynet, noting that Finanstilsynet's own review of the 2025 audits showed quality improvements since DnR's 2025 control. The breaches found were nevertheless so fundamental that a fine was warrantedFinanstilsynet.

The engagement findings follow the same pattern across all four clients. On fraud risk, the auditor's identification of fraud risks was deficientFinanstilsynet and the procedures designed to address them were unsatisfactoryFinanstilsynet, so sufficient and appropriate evidence was not obtained for several account balancesFinanstilsynet — a breach of section 9-4 third paragraph (c), (d) and (e)Finanstilsynet. The auditor also failed to exercise sufficient professional scepticism as required by section 9-4 fourth paragraphFinanstilsynet. Examples: in engagement A the close family relationship between the client's managing director — also board chair and significant shareholder — and the external accountant was never discussed by the team as ISA 240 requiresFinanstilsynet, and reliance on the director appearing honest was treated as audit evidenceFinanstilsynet; in the used-car business (engagement B) unusual sales, including one car bought after its recorded sale dateFinanstilsynet at a loss of around 66 per cent of costFinanstilsynet, were never verified against contracts or receiptsFinanstilsynet.

On revenue, the auditor identified a specific fraud risk of unrecorded salesFinanstilsynet but never obtained an understanding of the client's controls addressing that risk as ISA 315 requiresFinanstilsynet, and designed no procedures capable of proving completenessFinanstilsynet. In engagement C the invoice journal showed significantly higher turnover than the accountsFinanstilsynet, and a manual debit of roughly six times performance materialityFinanstilsynet that reduced recorded revenueFinanstilsynet was never checkedFinanstilsynet. The engagement and cyclical-control breaches are classified as grossFinanstilsynet; the audit-report defect in engagement AFinanstilsynet feeds into the overall assessment.

The fine is imposed under section 14-5 of the Auditors ActFinanstilsynet for breach of sections 7-1 fifth paragraphFinanstilsynet and 9-4 third and fourth paragraphsFinanstilsynet. A fine against an audit firm can reach 10 million kroner or 2 per cent of total annual turnover; ES Revisjon reported 2025 turnover of 27.7 million kronerFinanstilsynet and profit of 6.6 million. Finanstilsynet weighed the grossness and multi-year duration of the breaches, the preventive effect, and the economic advantage of reduced time spent. The firm was notified of the planned decision on 17 September 2026Finanstilsynet, has taken note of the preliminary report, and says it will take further quality-improvement measures. The firm may appeal within three weeks of receiptFinanstilsynet; the Financial Supervision Appeals Board (Finanstilsynsklagenemnda) is the appellate bodyFinanstilsynet. The tax collection authority collects the fineFinanstilsynet, with payment due three weeks after the invoice is sentFinanstilsynet.

Legal basis: revisorloven §§ 7-1 femte ledd, 9-4 tredje og fjerde ledd and 14-5Finanstilsynet.

Benchmark the findings against your own fraud-risk, revenue-audit and cyclical-inspection routines, and assess whether the firm needs remediation before the next inspection. The appeal deadline is three weeks from receipt of the decision.

Sources