[GNC] multiple attachments

[Adrien Monteleone]

Not sure I follow.

How different is linking a file you have access to (and providing the 
accountant with a copy of the file if requested/desired) any different 
than delivering a physical copy?

Is the person who enters data from documents into accounting software 
not supposed to have access to said documents? That makes no sense.

Should the person who transmits accounting software data files not also 
be allowed to provide supporting documentation?

Let's take the example of a local retailer family owned business run by 
a pair of siblings. Do you really think one only allows the other to 
have access to supplier invoices and only the other can enter data or 
transmit it to the accountant?

Let's even take a multi-national conglomerate, (which GnuCash is not 
designed for) how does data enter the books? Magic? (your job is to 
enter data, but you aren't allowed access to the documents that contain 
the data) Or, you can transmit the resulting magical data file to the 
accounting firm, but someone else has to send them the supporting 
invoices, receipts, etc. Really?

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but please, what am I missing?

(now, I'm not sure *why* you would have more than one document for any 
single given transaction, but that doesn't mean such a case doesn't 
exist, and as answered, GnuCash supports it via linking locations.)

Regards,
Adrien

On 1/25/21 9:22 PM, Michael or Penny Novack wrote:
> What are you trying to do? I mean what sort of documentation are you 
> trying to associate with the transactions? What is the purpose?
> 
> Also, what sort of entity are the books for? Personal? Business? 
> Organizational?
> 
> Of course gnucash having the ability does not mean has to be used. Thus 
> I would consider it convenient in PERSONAL books, maybe even sole 
> proprietorship business books, to be able to attach invoices or other 
> supporting documentation to the transactions.
> 
> But gives me a queasy feeling if regular business or organizational 
> books had the same person keep the books and had custody of that 
> documentation and that was machine readable/attached. I'll let an 
> accountant, preferably a forensic accountant explain why << if we have 
> any reading this >>