Ask AwraIQ about features, pricing, onboarding, login, integrations, security, demos, mobile apps, automation, reports, or support.
For Mauritius
A Mauritian company holding or managing operations elsewhere has an obligation almost no mainland business has: it must be able to show that it is genuinely run from Mauritius. The regulator assesses that in the round — people employed here, premises, expenditure incurred here, how often the board meets here and whether it actually decides — and every one of those is evidenced by ordinary operational records rather than by a document written in March. Most businesses in this position have the substance. What they do not have is a system that can say which jurisdiction each cost, each person and each decision belonged to without a fortnight of reconstruction.
Six tests, and the record each one rests on
These are the things the regulator weighs, in ordinary language rather than statutory language. Read the middle column as a question about your own system: not "do we do this" — you almost certainly do — but "could we produce the record for it this afternoon". The right-hand column is where that record usually lives, and it is the honest answer for most businesses rather than an unkind one.
01 People employed in Mauritius, and suitably qualified
The record it rests on
An employee register that distinguishes who is engaged by the Mauritian entity from who is engaged by a subsidiary or seconded in, with roles and start dates that do not have to be remembered.
Where it usually is instead
One combined staff list for the whole group, with the entity that employs each person inferred from which payroll they happen to appear on.
02 Adequate premises
The record it rests on
The lease, the rates, the utilities and the fit-out held as documents against the transactions that paid for them, in the entity that paid.
Where it usually is instead
Correct in the accounts and correct in reality, with the underlying documents in a folder somebody set up and a different person now maintains.
03 Expenditure incurred in Mauritius
The record it rests on
Cost coded to the entity that incurred it and the jurisdiction it was incurred in, so a total for the year is a report rather than an exercise.
Where it usually is instead
A group profit and loss, from which the Mauritian share is extracted annually by someone who knows which cost centres are which.
04 Board meetings held in Mauritius
The record it rests on
Minutes with a date, a place and an attendance list, filed where they can be found by date rather than by whoever circulated them.
Where it usually is instead
An email thread, a calendar invitation, and a set of minutes that exist and are correct but are in one person's mailbox.
05 A board that decides rather than ratifies
The record it rests on
Decisions with an authority behind them — an approval that had to happen before the commitment could, recorded against the commitment itself.
Where it usually is instead
Approval by message, executed immediately, minuted later. The decision was genuinely made; the sequence cannot be demonstrated.
06 Core activity carried out in or from Mauritius
The record it rests on
The work itself visible as work: time and cost against the mandate or investment it relates to, by the people who did it.
Where it usually is instead
Nowhere at all, in most cases, because the activity is professional judgement and nobody thought judgement produced records.
The pattern in the right-hand column is worth naming, because it is not carelessness. Every one of those arrangements works perfectly for running a business and fails only when someone outside it asks a question. They are the natural result of a group whose systems were configured for the trading subsidiaries — the ones with stock, customers and invoices — while the Mauritian entity was treated as a holding structure with a bank account and an auditor. It is the entity with the most demanding evidence obligation and usually the one nobody gave a proper chart of accounts.
Five questions worth asking internally before you ask any vendor anything
Can you produce, today, the total expenditure incurred by the Mauritian entity in Mauritius for the last financial year — as a report rather than as a calculation somebody performs?
Does your employee register say which entity engages each person, or is that inferred from which payroll they appear on?
If your administrator asked for every board minute from the last two years by date, where would you go, and how many people would you have to ask?
For a decision that committed the entity to something material, can you show that the approval preceded the commitment rather than followed it?
Who in your organisation currently holds the answers to the four questions above in their head, and what happens the month after they leave?
What this costs today
Each of these is a record-keeping arrangement that works perfectly for running a business and fails only when somebody outside it asks a question. That is why they persist, and why they are almost never anybody's fault.
The group ledger knows what was spent and on what. Whether it was incurred by the Mauritian entity, in Mauritius, is a judgement somebody makes annually — and a judgement that is correct but unrecorded is not evidence of anything.
Systems get configured for the subsidiaries that have stock and customers. The entity with the most demanding evidence obligation ends up with a bank account, an auditor and no chart of accounts worth the name.
The lease, the minutes, the mandate, the invoice from the local supplier — all of them real, all of them somewhere, and none of them attached to the transaction they explain. A file assembled by search is a file assembled once.
One or two people can reconstruct any year on request, which is why nothing was ever written down. The exposure is not compliance risk in the abstract; it is that the exposure only becomes visible the month after they resign.
The same work, moved earlier
Both of these end with a file. They differ in when the work happens, who does it, and how much of the year survives the process — and the difference is not effort or diligence, it is whether the records were captured as the year went along or reconstructed after it ended.
The common case, and it usually succeeds. That is exactly why it persists.
Not more work in total. The same work, moved to the moment when it costs almost nothing.
One honest caveat, because the right-hand column reads like a sales pitch and half of it is not ours to sell. The coding, the register, the documents and the approvals are what a system does. What the entity is actually doing, and whether it is enough, is not — that is a question for you, your administrator and your adviser, and no configuration answers it. What we are claiming is narrower and, we think, more useful: that a business which genuinely has substance should not have to spend a fortnight a year proving it, and that the reason it does is record-keeping rather than anything to do with tax.
The operation, in detail
Each links to a fuller tour. Nothing here files anything with anybody, and nothing here makes a judgement about whether your arrangements are sufficient — the boundary is drawn in full below.
Expenditure coded to entity, cost centre and site at the point of entry, so a total by entity for a period is a report rather than an extraction somebody performs from a group ledger.
The lease, the invoice, the mandate, the minute — attached to the record they evidence rather than filed in parallel to it, and retrievable by date, entity or counterparty.
Employees held as employees, with the entity, role, location and start date on the record — including people who are not users of the system and never will be.
Thresholds that refuse rather than warn, delegation configured per entity, and an approval recorded against the thing it authorised — so the sequence is demonstrable rather than remembered.
Professional work visible as work: hours and cost booked to the investment, engagement or project they relate to, by the people who did them.
Who changed what, when, and what it was before — across modules, retained, and exportable as a period pack rather than reassembled per request.
Scope, stated plainly
This is the market where that line matters most, because it is the market where our reader is most likely to be sitting next to somebody who is licensed and we are not. The first two items below are that line.
Running in the product today
Not built — and the first two are the ones that matter most here
The line we are drawing, since it is a fine one and the page is worth nothing if it is blurred: we are telling you that the evidence for substance is made of ordinary operational records, and that a system either captures those as it goes or leaves you to reconstruct them. We are not telling you what your substance should look like, whether yours is sufficient, or that any amount of software makes it so. The first is a records argument and we will stand behind it. The second is regulated advice and we are not the people to give it.
How this starts
Total expenditure incurred by the Mauritian entity, in Mauritius, for the last financial year. Not whether it is adequate — just the number. If it comes back as a report you can see the working of, your records are in good shape and this page is not urgent. If it comes back after two days and a conversation, that is the gap, and it is the same gap every March.
The interesting part is rarely the number. It is whether it was extracted by judgement about which ledger lines belong to which entity, and if so, whose judgement, and whether that person has written any of it down. This costs you one question and tells you more about your exposure than an audit will.
Not compliance, and not assurance — neither is ours to sell. What is on offer is that next year the file is a report rather than a fortnight, and that the two people who can currently reconstruct any year become useful rather than load-bearing. That is a smaller purchase than the market usually implies and it is the one that is honestly available.
Read before you shortlist
Six things get assessed, and every one of them is evidenced by records a business already generates. The failure is almost never that the substance is missing — it is that nobody can produce it without reconstructing the year.
Groups configure their systems for the trading subsidiaries, because that is where the stock and the customers are. Then they discover annually that the entity nobody configured is the one with the evidence obligation.
A market with capable local firms, a genuine fiscalisation obligation and a records problem nobody sells to. Mostly about buying the right three things from the right three places.
Questions we are asked here
No, and this is the first question on purpose because it is the one worth being unambiguous about. Substance is assessed on what your business actually does — people, premises, expenditure, where decisions are genuinely taken. Software does not change any of that. What it changes is whether you can evidence it: whether expenditure by entity and jurisdiction is a report or a reconstruction, whether documents sit against the transactions they explain, whether an approval can be shown to have preceded the commitment it authorised. If your arrangements are sufficient, good records make that demonstrable cheaply. If they are not, no system will help, and anyone selling you a "substance solution" should be asked precisely which regulator has accepted it.
We are not going to tell you, and we would be suspicious of a software vendor who did. The requirement is a level of expenditure proportionate to your level of activity, and the FSC publishes indicative guidance by activity type. Figures circulate secondhand, they vary by the kind of entity, and they change. Your management company or adviser has the current position for your specific activity, and that is a five-minute question to someone who is licensed to answer it. What we can tell you is that whatever the figure is, you will need to be able to produce your actual number against it — and that part is a records problem, which is ours.
Same answer, same reason. The test is a reasonable number of suitably qualified persons for the level of activity, assessed in the round rather than against a fixed count, and it can be satisfied directly or indirectly. There is no universal minimum, and inventing one for a web page would be worse than declining to. What is useful from our side is narrower: your employee register should be able to say which entity engages each person, in which location, in which role, from when — including people who are seconded, engaged indirectly, or will never log into a system. Most registers cannot, because they were built as a list of users.
No. Real-time fiscalisation through a certified Electronic Billing System is a genuine and expanding obligation in Mauritius — it began with the largest taxpayers and the stated direction is all VAT-registered persons, with the thresholds lowered in stages. We are not certified and hold no e-invoicing connection to the MRA. If you are in scope, or expect to be, the honest sequence is to choose your EBS first and then ask how anything else fits around it, rather than the other way round. We are describing an operations layer; the fiscalisation obligation sits on your billing.
Partly, and the part that does is a different shape from the page above. Your own substance obligation is the same as any GBC's. But your operational problem is that you are producing evidence for many entities at once, and the constraint is per-client attribution rather than per-jurisdiction — time against the right client mandate, expenditure that does not leak between engagements, documents filed to the client rather than to the year, and a trail that survives a change of administrator. Those are things we do. What we do not do is anything company secretarial: no statutory registers, no minute book, no share register. That will remain a separate system and you should assume it does.
Probably several, and this one last. The subsidiaries are where your stock, customers, payroll and tax obligations are, and those markets have their own pages because the problems there are genuinely local. This page is about the entity above them, and the reason it is worth a page at all is that groups configured for the operating companies routinely leave the holding entity with no meaningful chart of accounts — then discover annually that it is the one with the evidence obligation. If you are choosing a system for the group, the useful question is whether cost, headcount and documents can be attributed to an entity and a jurisdiction from the beginning, because retrofitting that is the expensive version.
For much of what you need, they are the right answer and you should use them — fiscalisation, payroll, company secretarial and the statutory filings are all better served locally, and we have said so above rather than pretending otherwise. Where we are worth a conversation is the operational layer underneath: procurement with approvals that block, cost attributed to an entity and a jurisdiction as it is entered, documents against transactions, stock across sites including goods you handle without owning, and an audit trail that spans all of it. That is a different purchase from an accounting package, and the reason it comes up here is that the evidence a Mauritian entity needs turns out to be a by-product of it. Support is remote from Nairobi, one hour behind you, in English — and you should ask us what happens when the person who implemented your system leaves, because that question separates vendors more reliably than any feature list.
Expenditure incurred by the Mauritian entity, in Mauritius, last financial year — and whether it arrived as a report or as somebody's judgement about which ledger lines belong where. Both answers are useful. Only one of them means this conversation is urgent.