An owner preparing for a sale can face a deceptively simple question: what happened to the unpaid invoices? A smaller balance is only the start of the answer. The useful explanation connects each change to its evidence and keeps unresolved amounts visible.
BDC’s accounts receivable overview describes customer payment terms and recommends reviewing the quality of individual receivables. Our focus here is the evidence behind those balances. Neither an ageing category nor this worksheet determines whether a customer will pay.
The worked example below separates three questions: how much money reached the bank, which invoices that money settled, and which balances changed for another reason. It then turns the answer into a record an owner can discuss with an accountant or transaction adviser.
Start with a dated report you can explain
Microsoft’s Dynamics 365 Finance customer ageing report documentation distinguishes “Aging as of” from “Balance as of,” the transaction cutoff. Its “Criteria” setting can use transaction, due or document dates. The same documentation describes a “Payment positioning” option that displays unsettled payments in the first column. That placement alone does not identify an invoice as paid. These are this named report’s settings, not universal rules for ageing reports.
For your evidence packet, record the report name, extraction date, transaction cutoff, ageing date, date basis, currency and relevant inclusion settings. Ask the preparer to explain unfamiliar choices. An age measured from a transaction or document date should not silently become a claim about days past the payment due date. Preserve the original extract so a later explanation can be compared with the starting point.
Keep receipts, allocations and credits separate
Microsoft’s Customer payment overview, using its USMF demo company, describes selecting invoices and settlement amounts, including partial amounts. It also allows a payment to be entered and posted before invoice settlement when the invoice is unknown or the payment is a prepayment. That documents system behaviour; a payment entry is not independent verification of money arriving at the bank.
Microsoft also provides an invoice and credit-note settlement example with cash-discount settings. The useful point for this guide is that a credit settlement has identifiable documents and settings. Its amounts and discount mechanics are not used below. Our fictional credit is expressly authorised, applied and without a bank movement; that is an assumption of this example, not a universal description of credits.
Five fictional invoices at day 30
All amounts are Canadian dollars. This is an original teaching worksheet, not a software report or an accounting policy. All five invoices were issued on day 0. We keep the population fixed, with no new invoices, tax, foreign exchange, fees, discounts, interest, writeoffs, refunds or other movements. A, B and C are different customers; D and E belong to one customer.
The cutoff and ageing date are both day 30, and overdue days are measured from the stated due days. Verified bank receipts recorded by the cutoff are stipulated at C$5,000 for A, C$2,000 for B and C$1,000 from the D/E customer. Only A’s and B’s receipts have been allocated to named invoices. The D/E receipt remains on account, with its allocation unresolved.
A C$1,000 credit has been authorised and applied to C by day 30, expressly without cash moving. C’s remaining C$2,000 is disputed; neither the dispute’s validity nor its resolution is known.
A — paid in full
Opening invoice: C$5,000, due day 10. Applied cash: C$5,000; applied credit: zero. Open balance: C$5,000 − C$5,000 = zero. There is no remaining invoice amount to include in the overdue total.
B — partly paid, billing support pending
Opening invoice: C$4,000, due day 15. Applied cash: C$2,000; applied credit: zero. Open balance: C$4,000 − C$2,000 = C$2,000. At day 30, it is 15 days past due. The customer says an invoice copy or purchase-order reference is needed; that support remains pending.
C — credit applied, remaining amount disputed
Opening invoice: C$3,000, due day 15. Applied cash: zero; applied credit: C$1,000. Open balance: C$3,000 − C$1,000 = C$2,000, also 15 days past due. The unresolved dispute is not another credit, and the existing credit is not evidence of a cash receipt.
D — overdue, receipt allocation unresolved
Opening invoice: C$4,000, due day 20. Applied cash and credit: zero. Open balance: C$4,000, ten days past due. The customer’s C$1,000 receipt exists, but nothing yet identifies D as the invoice it settles.
E — not yet due, same customer as D
Opening invoice: C$4,000, due day 60. Applied cash and credit: zero. Open balance: C$4,000, with 30 days until due. Sharing a customer with D does not resolve where the C$1,000 belongs.
Reconcile the two C$8,000 totals
The opening invoices total C$5,000 + C$4,000 + C$3,000 + C$4,000 + C$4,000 = C$20,000. Applied cash is C$5,000 + C$2,000 = C$7,000. Subtract that and the C$1,000 applied credit:
C$20,000 − C$7,000 − C$1,000 = C$12,000 of open invoice balances.
The open rows give the same answer: zero + C$2,000 + C$2,000 + C$4,000 + C$4,000 = C$12,000. B, C and D total C$8,000 of gross past-due invoice balances; E accounts for C$4,000 not yet due.
Separately, bank receipts total C$5,000 + C$2,000 + C$1,000 = C$8,000. They comprise C$7,000 allocated to A and B, plus C$1,000 still unallocated. The invoice balances also fell by C$8,000, but that reduction comprises C$7,000 of applied cash plus C$1,000 of credit.
The matching totals conceal different final components. Calling the entire invoice reduction “collections” would turn C’s credit into cash and overlook the unallocated receipt. Keep the C$12,000 labelled as the gross sum of these open invoice rows. It is not a net customer-ledger or general-ledger balance: the separate C$1,000 receipt must remain visible for reconciliation with the actual records.
The same receipt can change the overdue picture differently
Now compare two alternative mappings of the already received C$1,000. Hold day 30, all due dates and every other fact fixed. These alternatives illustrate what supporting remittance evidence could establish; they are not choices to make for a more attractive report.
If the receipt belongs to D: D becomes C$4,000 − C$1,000 = C$3,000. Gross past-due rows become B C$2,000 + C C$2,000 + D C$3,000 = C$7,000. E remains C$4,000.
If the receipt belongs to E: E becomes C$4,000 − C$1,000 = C$3,000. D remains C$4,000, so gross past-due rows stay at C$8,000.
Both mappings leave C$11,000 in open invoice rows and C$8,000 of total bank receipts. No new money arrives when this existing receipt is allocated. What changes is the invoice evidence and, depending on the mapping, the amount in overdue rows.
Keep the original extract and date any new allocation evidence or correction. This fixed-day comparison does not mean a historical software report automatically restates. If you move the reporting date forward, recalculate ageing; day-30 ages do not travel unchanged into a later report.
B and C need different investigations
BDC’s invoicing guide identifies billing delays, unclear payment terms and poorly defined responsibilities, and recommends finding out why a customer has not paid. That supports investigating the explanation behind a late balance, without promising a collection result.
In this example, B and C are both C$2,000 and 15 days past due. For B, the next evidence request concerns the invoice copy, purchase-order reference and whether the billing support reached the appropriate person. For C, it concerns the specific dispute, supporting performance records, the authorised C$1,000 credit and its application. Sending the same reminder would not answer those different questions.
For D/E, the unresolved question is allocation: which invoice does the remittance identify? The bank receipt supports the stipulated cash inflow but does not settle that mapping. None of these fictional explanations establishes a right to withhold payment, a right to collect, or a prediction that the remaining amount will be paid.
Build one evidence record per invoice
Use the following as a proposed discussion tool, not a mandatory buyer checklist. Keep document references alongside the numbers so another person can follow the explanation without reconstructing it from email.
Identity and basis: customer, invoice ID, currency, original amount, due date, report cutoff and ageing basis. These identify the exact balance being explained.
Invoice and performance support: invoice version, terms, dispatch record and relevant delivery or service evidence. These show what was billed and what supports the explanation.
Receipt and allocation: bank reference, receipt date, amount, remittance reference, invoice allocation and any unmatched remainder. These separate money received from the invoice it settles.
Credit and application: credit reference, authorisation evidence, amount and application record. These distinguish a documented reduction from an unresolved request.
Open question and responsibility: dated customer explanation, missing evidence, named follow-up owner and next review date. These keep an uncertainty visible until evidence changes it.
A fictional B record might read: “Day 30; invoice B; C$4,000 opening; C$2,000 applied receipt RB; C$2,000 open; due day 15. Customer requests invoice copy/PO reference. Maya Chen, finance lead, to confirm the correct reference and delivery of the copy; review day 33. Payment timing remains unknown.” That is a work record, not a promise to collect by day 33.
Before the sale discussion, ask the accountant to reconcile this invoice worksheet, the on-account receipt and the actual ledger. Ask the relevant adviser how unresolved balances and later evidence should be handled in the transaction’s specific documents. This guide supplies neither doubtful-debt accounting or tax treatment nor a purchase-price adjustment. Its endpoint is narrower and useful: a traceable explanation of what changed, what supports it and what remains unanswered.
For general information and education, not legal, tax, investment or valuation advice. Examples are illustrative and do not predict your business’s value, financing terms or sale outcome. Consult qualified advisers about your situation.
Subscribe to Deal Flow Canada for practical owner guides and Canadian deal updates.