Is there a way to do a 'double' split transaction?

[Wouter van Marle]

Hi,

Not very sure what you want to achieve but it sounds to me like this.
I'm not clear about those transport cards but I assume it's something
that you pay for and get refunded by your employer. So now I'm imagining
you have something like this, please correct if wrong:

Gross salary earned: $1000
deduct healthcare: $100
deduct taxes: $100
Net income for you: $800
refund transport card 1: $50
refund transport card 2: $50

For which you would get a $900 cheque ($800 for net salary; $100 for
transport); the below is a single split transaction:
income:salary		$1000
expense:healthcare 		$100
expense:tax			$100
bank:current			$900
assets:transport:card1	$50
assets:transport:card2	$50

Previously when you topped up those transport cards you would have a
transaction like:
bank:current		$50
assets:transport:card1		$50

Isn't that what you want to do?

Wouter.

On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 08:29 -0800, alfggmb wrote:
> Basically I have an income check from the workplace with most standard
> deductions; ie taxes, etc. One of these is for transit expense cards.  This
> I figured out could could be: Assets: Transportation Cards: Card1[serial]#
> etc for each different card.  But each card has only a certain amount $
> applied to it.  The check deduction is for the total $ for all the cards
> combined. 
> 
> I want to break up this total to put a certain amount into each of the cards
> I have with the different serial numbers, but show the total deduction as on
> my check for this split transaction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://gnucash.1415818.n4.nabble.com/Is-there-a-way-to-do-a-double-split-transaction-tp3330931p3336803.html
> Sent from the GnuCash - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> -----
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
> 
>