Lost Checks - No Payee - Best Practice

[Milton Stern]

My apologies for not being clear.

A box of blank checks were ordered from a bank.

Box of check was never received.

Checks have no payee and no amount.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Michael Hendry <hendry.michael at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> > On 1 Jun 2015, at 23:50, Milton Stern <drmoshe5 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ordered Checks lost in transit from Bank to Bank Account Holder.
> >
> > Anyone have a good methodologies for documenting these checks (ie
> > "Transfer" field, documentation of lost checks)
>
> I’m not sure what you mean by “Ordered Checks”, but will assume that you
> didn’t issue them yourself, but asked the bank to print them for you, and
> to send them to the respective payees (or their banks).
>
> The usual rule for a check which you’ve issued but which has never been
> cashed is to record the issue of the check in the normal way, and then to
> record a reversing transaction for the date on which you decide that the
> check has been lost or destroyed.
>
> This way, it’s quite clear what has happened. (Presumably the bank will
> have recorded corresponding transactions?).
>
> >
> > Transfer field will not accept blank entry. Transfer to same account
> > produces 2 entries -> messy.
>
> But essential to keep a clear record, in my view.
>
> > Should the "Orphan" Account be used?
>
> No.
>
> > Should it be set to "Void" after completion?
>
> I’d be inclined to leave both transactions in place.
>
> >
> > Is there a way to enter a range of check numbers all at once?
>
> No, but once you’ve entered the first check’s details, you can use the +
> key to increment the check numbers as you work your way through the list of
> checks.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Michael
> (NOT AN ACCOUNTANT)
>
> >
> > Suggestions appreciated.
> >
> > Moshe
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
>