Possible problem with splits
Heather J. Daley
gnucash at joyful.limedaley.com
Sat Jan 26 18:30:54 EST 2008
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Mike or Penny Novack wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>
>> Here's how I would do a deposit as you describe. When a payment is
>> recieved, whether from an invoice payment or from some other txn, I
>> would record as a deposit to an asset account called "Undeposited
>> Funds" or "Funds in Transit". When I make a bank deposit, then it
>> would be recorded as one lump transfer. My line items would be split
>> out in that interim account. I don't care about the various splits by
>> the time it goes into the bank. What this does is allows the detail of
>> each transaction to reside in another account in separate txns. The
>> lump sum deposit to the bank is just that, a lump sum deposit. THe
>> individual sources of income are handled in the other account and kept
>> separate that way.
>>
>>
> That would indeed solve the problem.
>
>> But, I don't actually have much call for this kind of detail in my
>> accounts.
>>
> We do. No invoices (not for money coming in). And for all money coming
> in that isn't from national, would want to clearly record who from as
> this detail VERY useful.
>
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
I'll chime in here just to say that when I do my deposits, it
works fine to have "Deposit" in the txn description (I know it's nearly
useless, but I like it better than a blank description.) Then the details
for each check are in the memo for each split. I really only have a
maximum of six checks per deposit, though, so it hasn't been a problem to
look at the expanded view and see what I want.
But it does sound like Michael in particular will want a system
like Andrew's.
Just wanted to put my two cents and say I like it how it is. (:
Heather, full of Joy
"Joy is the royal standard floating from the flagstaff of the heart,
telling us that the King is in residence."
-Anonymous
More information about the gnucash-user
mailing list