transaction date

Andrew Sackville-West andrew at swclan.homelinux.org
Thu Mar 13 10:26:50 EDT 2008


On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:41:06AM -0500, Mike or Penny Novack wrote:
>
>>
>> The short version is that there is nothing incorrect about having the
>> dates not match perfectly on both ends of a transaction. You record
>> your transactions on the day you initiate them. Other parties involved
>> in the transaction record them on the day they process them. These
>> dates don't match and that's okay.  
>>
>    That wasn't this situation. Of course the dates on your books need  
> not match the dates on some other entity's books. But here the  
> transaction was between two accounts in the same set of books. Note that  
> for legal purposes the real date (when going between parties) may not be  
> the date that either end has recorded. Unless a contract between the  
> parties specifies otherwise, might be the date when "constructive  
> delivery" occurred --- thus if that were critical, might be obtaining a  
> mailing receipt from the post office (again -- the usual disclaimer.)
>
>    The person asking the question didn't say WHY it was important that  
> the book dates matched what the banks had. From personal experience, let  
> me say that it can be*.

I don't disagree that there are times when it's a problem. I was
merely trying to point out that it is perfectly common for dates to
not match.

This is just an artifact of our banking systems and it's something we
have to either live with or work around. We are mostly insulated from
this situation when the txn is essentially between two sets of books
(e.g. mine and my vendor's). It only becomes glaringly obvious to us
when the txn is between two accounts in the same set of books but
between two different entities in the real world.

Most people seem unbothered by this when they are dealing with a check
written and mailed but for some reason can't tolerate it when it's a
wire transfer between two of their own accounts. It is an interesting
phenomenon...

>
>> If for some reason you need to keep specific track of the dates
>[...] then
>> do as Mike suggested and use an interim account ("Funds in
>> Transit"). Note [...] THe money out of one account will not directly point to
>> the other account in which it is deposited.
>>  
>>
>    There is a "description field" available on both transaction (to and  
> from "funds in transit") which can be used to for that purpose (when  
> going into "transit", record ultimate destination and when leaving  
> "transit" record where from).

I'm fully aware of the description field ;)... But the direct
connection (all splits in one txn and only pointing to final
destinations) is lost. It's a level of indirection. It's perfectly
valid and I use it all the time, (for reasons other than the "float"
between banks), but it's still a disconnect. 


>
> Michael
>
> * I am also "treasurer" of a second entity but in this case one that  
> does not have it's own existence as a 510(c)3 independent from national.  
> I have to submit quarterly reports plus the bank statements for our  
> local group to the national treasurer. If the transit interval spanned  
> the closing days of a quarter a discrepancy between books and bank  
> statements would be glaring and depending on the personality of the  
> national treasurer I might have a lot of explaining/exception report  
> filing to do (the previous office holder in that post was most  
> unreasonable).

<shudder>

A
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-user/attachments/20080313/3270da55/attachment.bin 


More information about the gnucash-user mailing list