Re: [SL] SL: Cash Reconcilation showing past reconciled items

[Michael H. <mh...@it...>]

We work with a number of small businesses here in the US, including  
accounting firms, and every single one of them compares the bank  
statement because the banks don't always get the check scanned in  
properly!  So I'm not sure where this "the check is in the mail"  
being good enough is coming from.  (If anything that phrase tends to  
be a bit of dark humor implying that it most definitely is NOT in the  
mail.  :)
    But back to the topic at hand, I think pretty much any business  
in any country does in fact have some system of checks and balances  
(literally!) to ensure that what the books say matches reality.   
Taxation may vary as much as the lawmakers can invent, and so can  
payment methodologies and tracking thereof, but at the end of the day  
there isn't a business owner out there who doesn't verify that they  
really did get that dollar!


Thanks,

Michael


On May 15, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Paul Tammes wrote:

The whole concept of Bank Statements seems European to me, US  
citizens use
checks and reconciliation instead iirc.
I think the concept that reconciliation should match the bank statements
like Dieter mentioned is solid and was long overdue.

However, it might take some thinking and reconsidering to get the  
basic idea
across to people who are not used to check statements and live with  
messages
like ´the check is in the mail´. That way of accounting was part of the
start of the worldwide mess we have right now to begin with. If the  
check is
mentioned in the statement, it is in. And can be reconciled with the
statement number and invoice number as unique identifier. If not, we  
might
have a bad debt (or mortgage) on our hands.


2009/5/15 Dieter Simader <dsi...@sq...>

> On Fri, 15 May 2009, Hamish Bain wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009, Dieter Simader wrote:
>>> Before applying a patch users should investigate why these  
>>> transactions
>>> show up. If it is a bug it will be fixed but if it is simply a user
> error,
>>> well, then fix up your own f'up.
>>
>> It would be interesting to know why you didn't reply to me on your  
>> Forum,
> as
>> a 'paid-up' member of SQL-Ledger since I started using it 3-4  
>> years ago,
> and
>> tell me I screwed up, and to fix my own f'up.  Or else at least  
>> make some
>> attempt to see if it might be a bug?
>
> Why should I hunt for a bug, just because you don't get it?
>
> I replied to your request with a detailed explaination of what you  
> have to
> do. What more do you need?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> --------
> Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
> Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables
> unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine
> for externally facing server and web deployment.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects
> _______________________________________________
> sql-ledger-users mailing list
> sql...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
------
Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables
unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine
for externally facing server and web deployment.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects
_______________________________________________
sql-ledger-users mailing list
sql...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users