[GNC] solved: Order of accounts when closing the book

[Stan Brown (using GC 4.14)]

Thanks for your example.

I might have done it differently if I'd known two weeks ago about the
tags, but I've spent two weeks setting everything up and editing older
transactions, and I'm extremely reluctant to go back and change that now.

I don't understand the rationale for "tags" that the user can't edit,
versus the Closing Entries Pattern in Income Statement and Profit &
Loss. Surely all the reports of a given category should work
consistently? But it would be very disappointing to see that consistency
achieved by removing the Closing Entries Pattern option from I/S and
P&L, since existing books that use that mechanism would no longer
generate correct reports.

Stan Brown
Tehachapi, CA, USA
https://BrownMath.com

On 2025-06-23 08:14, Christopher Lam wrote:
> See sample datafile and two reports
> The expenses account increases steadily.
> There are 3 closing transactions -- 31/12/23 created "properly" via Tool
> / Close Book, and 30/06/24 with SX, and 31/12/24 by Duplicating a
> previous closing transaction.
> See the reports, having the latter two closing transactions showing a
> large negative balance in the reports.
> This occurs because reports are /not/ detecting them via tag.
> Some legacy reports can detect them via regex which defaults to "Closing
> Entries".
> HTH
> 
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 at 09:59, Stan Brown (using GC 4.14)
> <stan+gc at fastmail.fm <mailto:stan%2Bgc at fastmail.fm>> wrote:
> 
>     Thanks, I didn't know about the tag mechanism. The only relevant reports
>     I've tried are Income Statement and Profit & Loss, and each of those has
>     an option on the Entries page to specify a phrase or regex for
>     transactions to be ignored.
> 
>     Maybe I'm not understanding your point, but my income statement and
>     balance sheet aren't distorted in the way you describe. I don't always
>     run monthly reports, but just now I ran one for last December and the
>     income and expense amounts were as I expected.
> 
>