Five deduction patterns account for over 90% of revenue leakage in distributor and manufacturer accounts receivable. Each pattern maps to a specific contract clause, a specific proof artifact, and a specific dispute workflow. Master them, and your AR clearing ledger stops being a write-off account and starts being a recovery engine.
The 2/10 taken outside the window
The single most common short-pay in B2B distribution. A buyer deducts 2% off the invoice total as a cash discount, but their payment clears the seller's bank account after the contractual 10-day window has closed. The buyer's AP system applies the discount automatically at invoice entry; nobody checks whether the payment actually arrived on time.
Standard payment terms of '2/10 Net 30' mean the buyer earns a 2.0% discount if — and only if — payment is received by the seller within ten calendar days of the invoice date. In practice, most buyers set up their ERP to deduct 2% at the time the invoice is approved and schedule payment for Day 8 or Day 9. The problem is that the check or ACH transfer doesn't always arrive on Day 8. Mail delays, bank processing queues, or the buyer's own cash management decisions push the actual clearance date past Day 10. The buyer has already deducted the discount; the seller never checks whether it was earned.
Section 6.1 of a typical Master Vendor Agreement states: 'Buyer may deduct 2.0% of the net invoice total if payment is received by Seller within ten (10) calendar days from invoice date. Invoices paid after Day 10 are payable at full net amount within thirty (30) days.' The operative word is 'received' — not 'mailed', not 'initiated', not 'approved'. Receipt means clearance in the seller's bank account, provable by ACH settlement timestamp or lockbox deposit record.
Axiom cross-references the invoice date against the bank clearance timestamp for each payment. If the ACH settlement or check clearance falls on Day 11 or later, the 2% discount is automatically flagged as unearned. The system generates a dispute letter citing §6.1, attaches the electronic settlement receipt showing the clearance date, and calculates the exact dollar amount of the unearned discount. For a $28,400 invoice, a disallowed 2% discount means $568.00 recovered — per invoice.
Freight billed on destination terms
A buyer deducts shipping costs from their payment even though the contract specifies FOB Destination — meaning the seller is obligated to deliver freight-free above a certain order threshold. The buyer's AP system sees a freight line on the carrier invoice and automatically nets it against the seller's remittance, ignoring the contractual obligation.
Under FOB Destination terms, the seller pays for shipping and assumes risk until the goods arrive at the buyer's dock. Many contracts include a dollar threshold — for example, 'Freight prepaid on orders exceeding $10,000.' When the buyer receives the goods, their AP department sometimes debits a 'freight adjustment' against the seller's payment, claiming the buyer arranged collect shipping. The problem: the contract says the seller already paid for shipping, and the order exceeded the threshold. The freight debit is phantom — it has no contractual basis.
Section 4.2 of the MVA typically reads: 'All purchase orders with a net invoice value exceeding $10,000 shall ship FOB Destination, freight prepaid by Seller. Carrier selection is at Seller's discretion. Orders under $10,000 ship FOB Shipping Point, freight collect.' The test is binary: order value above $10,000 = seller pays freight. The buyer cannot debit freight on a qualifying order regardless of which carrier was used or what the carrier invoice says.
Axiom matches the order invoice total against the freight threshold in §4.2. If the order exceeds $10,000 and the buyer deducted freight, the system pulls the signed carrier Bill of Lading (BOL) showing clean dock receipt (all pallets received, no shortage). The dispute letter cites §4.2, states the order total, attaches the BOL as evidence that delivery was completed under seller-paid terms, and requests full reversal of the phantom freight debit.
Unit price off the signed schedule
The buyer's AP system pays invoices at a unit price that differs from the rate in the signed pricing schedule. This happens when the buyer's procurement team negotiates a new rate but the AP system still references the old price list, or when the buyer misapplies a volume tier discount before the qualification threshold is reached.
Most B2B contracts include a master price schedule — a table of SKUs with corresponding unit prices, effective dates, and volume-based tier adjustments. When the buyer processes an invoice for payment, their ERP compares the invoiced unit price against their internal price list. If there is a discrepancy — because the buyer's list is outdated, because they applied a tier discount prematurely, or because a pricing amendment was never entered — the system deducts the difference. The seller's invoice shows $42.00/unit; the buyer pays $38.50/unit. The $3.50 variance, multiplied across hundreds of units, becomes a significant revenue leak.
Section 3.4 of the MVA covers price protection: 'Seller agrees to provide sixty (60) days prior written notice before any wholesale price increase. Purchase orders placed before the effective date of any increase shall be invoiced at the legacy rate. Buyer shall pay invoices at the rate published in the then-current Master Price Schedule.' The key protection is the 60-day notice window and the legacy rate clause — if the seller properly notified the buyer of a price change and the order was placed after the effective date, the new price is valid.
Axiom maintains a version-controlled record of the master price schedule and cross-references each invoice line item's unit price against the effective schedule on the invoice date. If the buyer paid at a lower rate without a corresponding amendment or tier qualification, the system calculates the per-unit and total-order variance, cites §3.4, attaches the applicable price schedule, and generates a dispute letter for the full pricing discrepancy balance.
Volume credits taken before they are earned
A buyer prematurely deducts an annual growth rebate credit against their invoice payments before the contractual purchase volume threshold has been met. The buyer assumes they will hit the target by year-end and takes the credit early — but the contract says rebates are earned at threshold, not before.
Many distributor contracts include tiered volume rebates: 'Buyer earns a 3.0% annual growth rebate if total net purchases exceed $5.0M in the contract year.' The intent is to reward loyalty. In practice, the buyer's procurement team programs the 3% rebate into their AP system from Day 1 of the contract year, deducting it from every payment. By Q2, the buyer may have purchased $1.8M — well below the $5.0M trigger. The rebate hasn't been earned, but the money has already been deducted.
Section 9.1 typically reads: 'Buyer shall earn a volume rebate of 3.0% on aggregate net purchases provided total purchases in the contract year exceed $5,000,000.00. Rebates are calculated and payable quarterly in arrears, subject to verification of cumulative purchase volume.' The controlling language is 'exceed $5,000,000' and 'quarterly in arrears' — the rebate is payable after the threshold is proven met, not before.
Axiom calculates year-to-date cumulative purchases from the buyer's invoice and PO history. If the YTD total is below the §9.1 trigger at the time of deduction, the rebate is classified as premature and the full amount is flagged as recoverable. The dispute letter includes a YTD purchase calculation, cites the contract year threshold, and requests reversal of the unearned rebate credit.
A short-pay with no reason on the remittance
The buyer shorts the payment and provides no reason code, no backup document, and no claim reference on the remittance advice. These 'Code 99' or blank-reason deductions are the most frustrating for AR teams because there is nothing to audit against — and that is precisely why they are recoverable.
Some buyer AP systems allow payments to be released with a reduced amount and no explanation. The remittance advice arrives with a short-pay balance and either a generic 'Code 99 — Other' reason code or a completely blank reason field. The seller's AR team opens a claim investigation, but without a stated reason, they have nothing to validate or dispute. In many organizations, these deductions sit in the clearing account for 90+ days and are eventually written off as 'cost of doing business.'
Section 12.3 of a well-drafted MVA includes a remittance documentation requirement: 'All deductions and chargebacks must be accompanied by a written claim statement specifying the reason, the affected invoice(s), and supporting documentation. Deductions without substantiation are subject to full reversal upon written notice from Seller.' The absence of documentation is itself the grounds for recovery.
Axiom scans the remittance advice for reason code and backup document presence. If the reason field is blank, contains 'Code 99', or references no supporting claim document, the system flags the full short-pay balance as recoverable under §12.3. The dispute letter does not argue the merits of the deduction (there are none to argue) — it simply states that the deduction was taken without substantiation and requests full reversal per the contractual documentation requirement.