Intercompany reconciliation where every difference is explained, trued up at source and approved by both sides, with no top-side plug
Every intercompany difference explained and trued up at source, with no top-side plug.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Intercompany reconciliation is matching the balances and transactions two companies in the same group hold with each other — receivable against payable, revenue against cost, loan against borrowing — and resolving every difference so consolidation can eliminate them in full. Botminds Intercompany Reconciliation gives the work to eight agents that match every pair, find and cite why each one is out, and draft the true-up in the entity the agreement says is wrong, for both entity controllers to approve.
How to choose AI solutions for back-office and enterprise work →
Updated
Every sale, recharge, loan and fee between two group companies is booked twice — once in each ledger, often in different ERPs and currencies — and at close the receivable, the payable, the revenue and the cost must agree before consolidation can eliminate them in full. They rarely do. An accountant exports both ledgers to spreadsheets, finds the difference, and e-mails two entity controllers who each believe their own books are right.
The hard part is not finding that a pair is out; it is proving why, and which side should change. Was it the rate, goods or cash in transit, an invoice e-mailed and never loaded to the portal, the wrong trading partner, a markup amendment nobody put in the price list, withholding tax, a duplicate? When nobody can show which entity is wrong by the lock, the residual goes to a top-side adjustment in group reporting — and an unsupported plug is the first thing the auditor asks about.
Estimated split for a quarter-end intercompany close in a group of about 60 entities, by hand and with the solution.
Eight agents match every pair, find and cite why it is out, draft the true-up in the right entity and re-check the eliminations; both controllers approve.
Kestrel & Vane Group closes Q3 2026 across 62 entities. It is Wednesday 14 October, working day 10 of 11; consolidation locks Thursday 15 October at 12:00 CET. Here is how the group controller and two entity controllers work with the agents, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Annika's home is a conversation with the agents. The close coordinator reports the night: 9,847 intercompany lines read from 18 ledgers and 9,611 matched; 354 pairs agree to the cent and 37 sit inside the €5,000 tolerance. 21 pairs are out — 16 with a true-up ready, 2 waiting on an answer, 3 that need a person. Below it, the break investigator puts the largest first, and every figure carries a numbered citation.
“True-ups are due today at 17:00; consolidation locks Thu 15 Oct, 12:00 CET.”
Each cell is one pair of group entities, net of everything both ledgers hold for Q3: a tick when it agrees, “<5k” inside tolerance, or the difference with a dot sized by amount and coloured by status. Three cells hold 63% of the money that is out. Annika picks US01 ↔ DE02 — €212,025.89, FX rate, awaiting approval — and the agents' brief opens beside the map.
US01, Kestrel & Vane Holdings US Inc., holds €14,576,181.92 against DE02; DE02, Kestrel & Vane Antriebstechnik GmbH, holds €14,364,156.03 against US01. Five of six lines match to the cent — IT licences, a travel recharge, a netting settlement — joined across the two ledgers. The sixth is the Q3 management fee: US01 invoiced it on 30 Sep at 1.1640, €14,314,776.63; DE02 accrued it on 7 Oct at 1.1815, €14,102,750.74.
Seven sources, one click each: the DE02 journal, agreement KVG-ICA-014 and its fee schedule, both rate tables, the US01 invoice and the group policy.
The investigator shows its plan and lets anyone replay it: collect both ledgers, match line by line, look for the cause — the same US-dollar amount on both sides, so not a price or a missing booking — read the agreement, check the rate tables, draft the true-up in DE02, the side that used the wrong rate, and ask the checker. Confidence 0.97.
Its limit: below 0.80 confidence it never guesses — it hands the pair to a named person.
Every statement opens its source with the passage the agent relied on marked. Agreement KVG-ICA-014, §5 Currency and rates: fees are invoiced in euros, and the US-dollar fee converts at the group closing rate for the last business day of the service period. That was Wednesday 30 September, 1.1640 in Group Treasury's table GR-2026-09. DE02 used the 7 October daily rate.
“The US-dollar fee is converted at the group closing rate published by Group Treasury for the last business day of the service period. No other rate applies.”
The true-up lands in Markus's books, so he asks the question every entity controller asks: why my side? The investigator answers from the agreement and the invoice, with citations. Above it, the elimination checker has already re-performed the pair from its own copy of both ledgers, with the true-up applied: the pair nets to €0.00. Markus could also tell the agents to book it as group reporting only; they would argue against it and offer a version 2 that restarts every approval.
“Adjusting US01 instead would break §5: US01’s invoice already uses the rate the agreement sets.”
The proposal is a real entry: in DE02, Dr 6720 Intercompany management fees, Cr 2410 Intercompany payables · US01, €212,025.89, period 009/2026, reason TU-01 “FX rate set by the agreement”, version 1. Markus picks the reason code, may add a note for the auditor, and confirms he has read the 7 sources the agents cited before he can approve.
“Your approval is signed with your name and time. The entry is parked once the other approvers sign.”
Laura sees the same proof and approves for US01, whose books stay as booked. Under €250,000 the group controller is kept informed rather than asked, as the group policy §8 sets. Only now does the true-up drafter park the entry in DE02 for posting — the pair moves to “Approved, posting” and both approvals are on the audit trail with their reason code.
“B01 approved by everyone. Parked in DE02 for posting.”
UK01 ↔ US01 is out by €34,879.73: US01 recharged 17.1% of Q3 shared IT cost, UK01 booked 16.4%, and neither version of Schedule D is signed by both parties. The investigator stops at 0.52 confidence and, per §11, hands it to the group controller with the transfer pricing manager. Annika records the decision and why; the drafter turns it into a new version for both controllers.
“3 I cannot explain. I will not guess; tell me what you decide and I will draft it.”
An independent agent copies all 18 ledgers, applies the 16 true-ups as drafted and eliminates all 412 pairs. Receivables and payables fall from €1,158,965.02 apart to €83,379.73, all of it in open pairs. Five pairs, €99,364.73, are carried open with an owner and a note. Unsupported top-side adjustments: €0.00. The check is Tomás's to sign before consolidation locks.
“I never reuse another agent’s numbers.”
The same Q3 close, seen by five of the people who carry it — what the last days before the lock looked like, and what they look like now.
Eight agents match every pair, find and cite why it is out, draft the true-up in the right entity and re-check the eliminations; both controllers approve.
Pulls every intercompany line from 18 ledgers on 4 systems, the intercompany portal and the bank statement feeds, read-only.
Pairs lines across the two ledgers by invoice reference, amount, date and partner — one to one, one to many, many to many — in group currency.
Finds why a pair is out — rate, timing, missing booking, wrong partner, price, tax, duplicate — and cites the lines and documents that prove it; asks a controller for missing evidence, such as a tax receipt.
Reads the intercompany agreements and the group policy — rates, markups, cut-off, who bears tax, who buys — and flags agreements that are missing, unsigned or expiring.
Drafts the true-up in the entity the agreement says is wrong, with accounts, amount, period and reason code, and writes a new version when a controller asks.
Re-performs the eliminations independently from its own copy of the ledgers, with the true-ups applied, and confirms each pair nets to €0.00.
Plans the monthly netting run from agreed balances only, and holds invoices from pairs still open until both controllers approve.
Talks with people: the morning briefing, answers with citations, reminders and escalation against the close calendar, and the close report for the CFO.
Approve true-ups on their books; the group controller above €250,000. The agents propose; a named person decides.
On every screen, ask about any pair, cause, rate, agreement or approval in plain words — or instruct the agents. Every answer cites its source.
Why is US01 out with DE02?
€212,025.89. DE02 accrued the Q3 fee on 7 Oct at that day’s rate, 1.1815. The agreement converts at the group closing rate of the last business day of the period: 30 Sep, 1.1640. The drafter proposes the true-up in DE02; Markus Feldmann and Laura Bennett approve.
Why not adjust US01 instead?
Adjusting US01 instead would break §5: US01’s invoice already converts at 1.1640, the rate the agreement sets.
Book it as group reporting only
I can, but I would not recommend it. A group-reporting-only adjustment leaves DE02’s local books on the wrong rate, and the agreement sets the rate for both sets of books. It would also need the group controller’s approval. Here is version 2 if you want it — approvals start again.
What is left before the consolidation lock?
Consolidation locks Thu 15 Oct, 12:00 CET. Of 21 pairs with a difference: 1 approved, 15 awaiting approval, 2 waiting on a tax receipt, 3 need a person. 37 small differences wait to be cleared by rule. I have filtered the differences that need attention.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The group controller owns the rules the agents follow. A change needs a reason, is on the audit trail and applies from the next run.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Tolerance per pair | €5,000 | Any amount · below it a person may clear a difference by rule with a reason code (policy §6) |
| Group controller also approves above | €250,000 | Any amount · plus every group-reporting-only adjustment (policy §8) |
| Agent hands a pair to a person below | 0.80 confidence | The confidence the investigator needs to propose a true-up |
| Lowest confidence for a match | 0.90 | The matcher never forces a match below this |
| Top-side adjustments for intercompany differences | Not allowed | Policy §9: never without support |
| Reason codes | 8 true-up codes, TU-01 to TU-08 | Plus rejection codes RJ-01 to RJ-04 and tolerance codes TL-01 to TL-03 |
| Rate source | Group Treasury closing rates, monthly | An agreement may set its own rate for its invoices · daily rates read for reference only |
| Reminders and escalation | 12:00 and 15:00, escalate at 17:00 | Each on or off · e-mail, chat and a weekly digest for the CFO |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample close data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (Deloitte, Intercompany accounting and process management, poll of more than 3,800 professionals, via Accounting Today — 9.2% call their framework leading, 21.4% name disparate systems as the top barrier; SEC Litigation Release 20547 (2008) — intercompany accounts unreconciled for at least six years). Elimination in full: IFRS 10 B86(c) and ASC 810. Kestrel & Vane Group, its entities and the people named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Intercompany reconciliation is matching the balances and transactions two companies in the same group hold with each other — receivable against payable, revenue against cost, loan against borrowing — and resolving every difference so consolidation can eliminate them in full. Botminds Intercompany Reconciliation gives the work to eight agents that match every pair, find and cite why each one is out, and draft the true-up in the entity the agreement says is wrong, for both entity controllers to approve.
The break investigator works through the pair like an accountant would: both ledgers, line by line, then the cause — FX rate, timing, a missing booking, the wrong counterparty, price or markup, withholding tax or a duplicate. It cites the ledger line, document, rate table or clause that proves it, shows its plan and confidence, and asks a controller when evidence such as a tax receipt is missing.
The agreement reader turns each intercompany agreement and the group policy into the terms the agents apply: the rate clause, markup amendments, cut-off and title, who bears withholding tax, who is the buyer. The true-up drafter puts the entry in the entity those terms say is wrong and explains why the other side stays as booked.
Below 0.80 confidence the investigator does not guess. It hands the pair to a named person — the group controller, with the transfer pricing manager where a price or allocation key is in question — with the options and their consequences. The decision needs a reason, and the drafter turns it into a new version for both controllers to approve.
A separate elimination checker takes its own copy of every ledger, applies the true-ups as drafted and re-performs all eliminations by type — receivables and payables, revenue and costs, loans, borrowings and interest, cash in transit. Pairs that do not reach €0.00 are carried open with an owner and a note, never plugged, and the consolidation accountant signs the check.
The settlement planner plans the monthly netting run from agreed balances only and holds invoices from pairs that are still open; they join the next run once both controllers approve. It never releases a payment — the treasury analyst approves the run.
Yes. The agents read ledgers read-only, never post without every approval, never propose a top-side plug and never approve anything. Both entity controllers approve a true-up that touches their books with a reason code, the group controller also approves above €250,000 or group-reporting-only adjustments, and every step is on an audit trail that cannot be edited.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your intercompany policy, agreements, chart of accounts and a past quarter of intercompany lines — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own pairs first.
Every balance tied to its support, and every difference explained before anyone signs.
1-min demoFlux AnalysisEvery variance explained to within 5%, with cited drivers, before the board sees it.
1-min demoAccrual AutomationEvery accrual proposed with its proof by day one, checked so no cost is counted twice.
1-min demoWe'll run Intercompany Reconciliation on a quarter of your own intercompany lines and the agreements behind them.