Expense Reports no Problem

[Maf. King]

On Thursday 01 July 2010 18:19:51 Michael Leone wrote:
> The problem with using the Income and Expense report for *just* and
> Expense report is that Income is always shown, even when not selected.
> An Expense report should be expenses ... Not income *and* expenses.
>
> I realize that we are using the report in a way it was not intended.
> But it's as close as we can get. There's no way to make the report
> show *only* what we ask for.  What we are looking to get is a report
> that has no "Revenue" section; that is extraneous. But that section is
> hard-coded, for this report.

Hi,

Just had a look at this report - I've got GC 2.2.7 on this machine, so 
YMMV :-(

I don't want to beat up on Mike, since I think that he must feel the whole 
world is against him at the moment ....BUT....
 
Reoprts -> Income & Expense -> Income Statement.
Options.
Accounts tab -> select a couple of expense accounts at random
Display tab -> Uncheck "Label revenue section" and "Include Revenue Total"
Hit OK.

Granted, there is still a "net loss for period" which is the same as 
the "total expenses" figure, but the latter can of course be removed in the 
display tab mentioned above...


Or, as I said in a post earlier today, I find the transaction report to be 
generally useful.
On the display tab, uncheck everything except Totals, and set Amount to NONE 
in the sorting tab, I set secondary subtotal to none too, but monthly may 
work for you...

Any use for your specific example, Mike?

Maf.


>
> On 7/1/10, Steve Juniper <snijuniper at comcast.net> wrote:
> > I do not understand the problem with expense reports, unless it is
> > simply having expense reports under (negative) income. It looks easy to
> > do. I experimented with getting an expense summary of rental property I
> > own. From Income Statement under reports I went to Income Statement,
> > cleared all, selected Rental and the subcategories (taxes, plumbing,
> > landscaping, etc), selected last year beginning to end as the dates and
> > hit OK (or whatever it was). I got exactly what I was looking for with
> > no extraneous stuff.
> > Steve J