Lost Checks - No Payee - Best Practice
Edward Doolittle
edward.doolittle at gmail.com
Mon Jun 8 16:42:30 EDT 2015
I agree about not logging the cheques in GnuCash. GnuCash doesn't need to
(and shouldn't) know everything. You might want to log information about
the cheque numbers somewhere, but GnuCash doesn't seem like the right place.
Why don't you just keep the cheques and use them later? Number will be out
of sequence but GnuCash sorts by date and then by number so it won't
matter, unless you have other software or procedures that require sorted
cheque numbers. (Probably a bad idea, because the numbers will eventually
cycle.)
Anyway, you ask about something bad happening if you put transactions in an
orphan account. Buddha Buck is right when he says that the orphan and
imbalance accounts should normally be empty, and having something in them
is a sign that something is wrong and needs attention.
I would go further and say that orphan and imbalance accounts should
normally not exist. If I find an orphan or imbalance account has popped
into my account tree, I examine all transactions in the account and
eventually fix them so that there is no leg in orphan or imbalance. Then I
delete the orphan or imbalance account from my account tree.
That way, there is a big signal to me that something is wrong: not just
that there are items in orphan or imbalance, but that the accounts exist at
all.
So I would strongly recommend that you not use those accounts for any
purpose, and further that you should delete them from your account tree
when they're empty.
On 8 June 2015 at 14:07, Buddha Buck <blaisepascal at gmail.com> wrote:
> Under normal operation, the Orphan and Imbalance accounts should always be
> empty. If they have any transactions, it means that something is wrong in
> terms of data entry and needs to be tracked down and fixed before you can
> be sure things are right.
>
> If you put some transactions in Orphan which you expect to always be there,
> it can be harder to notice when there are transactions which shouldn't be
> there are there. It's easier to see when something's there versus not there
> than it is to see that there's an extra item in a large number of items.
>
> As I understand it, you are planning on entering in hundreds of
> transactions of the form:
>
> 2015-06-08 5601 Lost Check *VOID*
> Credit Assets:Checking $0.00
> Debit Orphan $0.00
> 2015-06-08 5602 Lost Check *VOID*
> Credit Assets:Checking $0.00
> Debit Orphan $0.00
>
> Unless you have some requirement (by law, or by your auditor, or by your
> accountant) to account for every single check number in your books, I fail
> to see the purpose. You have already reported to the bank that the checks
> were missing, you have already received the replacement checks (as well as
> the original missing checks), and you have already physically destroyed the
> original missing checks, so they are physically accounted for an unusable.
> Why add them to GnuCash at this time?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:33 PM Milton Stern <drmoshe5 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the suggestion Fred.
> >
> > Re:"Why would you want a second account anyway? A txn with zero value
> does
> > not require a balancing split in another account."
> >
> > But, it seems that if I do not assign an account for transfer, it
> defaults
> > to "Orphan".
> > --
> > And, thanks John for the standard accounting info. I am not an
> accountant,
> > and would be a classified as a newbie in accounting lingo.
> >
> > Re: "Orphan", as I best understand is a trick by gc to put an incomplete
> > transaction somewhere. What I do with a voided check is put "Void" in
> > the payee field, and post the zero credit amount to the checking
> > account, and post the zero debit amount to the expense account "misc".
> > If you choose to post every one of the voided checks, then I would
> > create an expense account "Voided Checks", but I don't think entering
> > all of the voided checks is necessary. The intent of posting to the
> > expense account "Misc" is to honor standard accounting procedures.
> >
> > Typically I would have thought that an "unused" voided check would have
> its
> > own classification, or could be left with a non-account name. However,
> > GnuCash defaults it to "Orphan".
> > When I have to void a check, due to error, lost in mail to Payee,
> expired,
> > etc., I would just void it in place, and leave the transfer account as
> is.
> > This way I could easily keep track of the original Payee/Date of
> attempted
> > payment.
> > As far as putting it into Expense:Misc, I was trying to avoid cluttering
> > the category.
> > --
> > Does anyone know if it would cause damage by leaving it in the default of
> > "Orphan"?
> >
> > Thanks again to everyone,
> >
> > Moshe
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, <gnucash-user-request at gnucash.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Send gnucash-user mailing list submissions to
> > > gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > > gnucash-user-request at gnucash.org
> > >
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > > gnucash-user-owner at gnucash.org
> > >
> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > > than "Re: Contents of gnucash-user digest..."
> > >
> > >
> > > Today's Topics:
> > >
> > > 2. Re: Lost Checks - No Payee - Best Practice (Fred Bone)
> > > 4. Re: Lost Checks - No Payee - Best Practice (MySpam)
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 2
> > > Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 06:11:54 +0100
> > > From: "Fred Bone" <Fred.Bone at dial.pipex.com>
> > > To: gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> > > Subject: Re: Lost Checks - No Payee - Best Practice
> > > Message-ID: <5575241A.11929.CF2A6F6 at Fred.Bone.dial.pipex.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> > >
> > > On 7 June 2015 at 18:35, Milton Stern said:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > Anyway, back to the uses of the "Orphan" account.
> > > > Wm... I'm confused. From your description, wouldn't it be appropriate
> > for
> > > > the "Orphan" account if a "Voided" check has no Payee matching
> account?
> > > Is
> > > > it better to let our confused financial banks keep track without a
> > > > notation within our local software?
> > >
> > > Why would you want a second account anyway? A txn with zero value does
> > > not require a balancing split in another account.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 4
> > > Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 16:34:00 -0700
> > > From: MySpam <myspam at americansentry.net>
> > > To: gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> > > Subject: Re: Lost Checks - No Payee - Best Practice
> > > Message-ID: <5574D4E8.1050109 at americansentry.net>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> > >
> > > "Orphan", as I best understand is a trick by gc to put an incomplete
> > > transaction somewhere. What I do with a voided check is put "Void" in
> > > the payee field, and post the zero credit amount to the checking
> > > account, and post the zero debit amount to the expense account "misc".
> > > If you choose to post every one of the voided checks, then I would
> > > create an expense account "Voided Checks", but I don't think entering
> > > all of the voided checks is necessary. The intent of posting to the
> > > expense account "Misc" is to honor standard accounting procedures.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 06/07/2015 03:35 PM, Milton Stern wrote:
> > > > Just an update on the Lost check situation.
> > > >
> > > > 1. The bank, via secure email, informed me that their initial
> response
> > > was
> > > > in error. There would be no charge fo "Stop Check" orders for checks
> > lost
> > > > in the mail from their order center to me.
> > > > 2. They sent me new checks that arrived within 2 days (no charge for
> > > > expedited shipping.) - I was impressed
> > > > 3. The "Lost" checks arrived the same day via regular mail (1 month
> > > late).
> > > > Asked the bank if they would unstop the "lost" checks, or I should
> > > destroy
> > > > them. There response was to disregard the "lost" checks, but I could
> > use
> > > > them after 6 months because a check stop order is only good for 6
> > months.
> > > > Very strange response. But, I guess it makes sense for a dated check
> to
> > > be
> > > > stopped only for 6 months because a dated check is invalid after 6
> > > months.
> > > > Good thing that I have a decent diamond cut shredder. Anybody need
> some
> > > > confetti?
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, back to the uses of the "Orphan" account.
> > > > Wm... I'm confused. From your description, wouldn't it be appropriate
> > for
> > > > the "Orphan" account if a "Voided" check has no Payee matching
> account?
> > > > Is it better to let our confused financial banks keep track without a
> > > > notation within our local software?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 7:53 AM, <gnucash-user-request at gnucash.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Send gnucash-user mailing list submissions to
> > > >> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> > > >>
> > > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > >> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> > > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > > >> gnucash-user-request at gnucash.org
> > > >>
> > > >> You can reach the person managing the list at
> > > >> gnucash-user-owner at gnucash.org
> > > >>
> > > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > > >> than "Re: Contents of gnucash-user digest..."
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Today's Topics:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. Re: Lost Checks - No Payee - Best Practice (Wm)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> Message: 1
> > > >> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 19:57:06 +0100
> > > >> From: Wm <wm+gnc at tarrcity.demon.co.uk>
> > > >> To: gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: Lost Checks - No Payee - Best Practice
> > > >> Message-ID: <OVxo$AHCEfcVFw$T at tarrcity.demon.co.uk>
> > > >> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
> > > >>
> > > >> Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:49:34
> > > >> <CACzT_q9rL-NTE8KpK4m=LHxymiDd3OXLj+6aVrT0vHGx-=bQqw at mail.gmail.com
> >
> > > >> Milton Stern <drmoshe5 at gmail.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> A "Lost Check" account would work. May I ask if it would be
> > > >> inappropriate
> > > >> to match with the "Orphan" account?
> > > >> I'm not clear on the "Orphan" usage.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Do NOT use an Orphan a/c for this (or anything else) they are gnc's
> > way
> > > >> of saying something has gone wrong (transaction not balanced, etc).
> > > >>
> > > >> If there was no cost associated I'd void the set of cheques with the
> > > >> bank and leave it up to them not to honour them
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Wm...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Subject: Digest Footer
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> gnucash-user mailing list
> > > >> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> > > >> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 5
> > > Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:54:48 -0700
> > > From: John Ralls <jralls at ceridwen.us>
> > > To: Brian Buchalter <bal711 at gmail.com>
> > > Cc: "gnucash-user at gnucash.org" <gnucash-user at gnucash.org>
> > > Subject: Re: 2.6.6 Crashes on Open on OS X 10.9.5
> > > Message-ID: <78E556B0-1542-40DC-8352-8E5851C96B92 at ceridwen.us>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 8, 2015, at 4:03 AM, Brian Buchalter <bal711 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I believe it was an Income/Expense Report, but not sure which one.
> > Would
> > > it be helpful to try and reproduce?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Probably not, as it?s likely a WebKit bug that we can?t do anything
> > about.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > John Ralls
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Subject: Digest Footer
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > gnucash-user mailing list
> > > gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> > > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > End of gnucash-user Digest, Vol 147, Issue 11
> > > *********************************************
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
--
Edward Doolittle
Associate Professor of Mathematics
First Nations University of Canada
1 First Nations Way, Regina SK S4S 7K2
« Toutes les fois que je donne une place vacante, je fais cent mécontents
et un ingrat. »
-- Louis XIV, dans Voltaire, Le Siècle de Louis XIV, Chap. XXVI
More information about the gnucash-user
mailing list