sql-ledger-users

[SL] Mayor release of SQL-Ledger

[Antonio T. <atp...@te...>]

Greetings.

A few weeks ago, I read in the "What's Ahead" section (when there was a s=
ection named "What's Ahead" in the
page) that since April 2006, no more new features will be added to versio=
n 2.6.x because since December, the
development team is working in a mayor release.

Has Dieter Simader or someones DWS Systems Inc. published a temptative da=
te for this mayor release?

Re: [SL] Mayor release of SQL-Ledger

[Dr. S. S. J. <sc...@fy...>]

Antonio: 

 
> A few weeks ago, I read in the "What's Ahead" section (when there was a section named "What's Ahead" in the
.... 
> Has Dieter Simader or someones DWS Systems Inc. published a temptative date for this mayor release?

This is just WAY too good to pass up, even too Tempting....when I read of a
temptative date when a tentative date was meant instead. 

English is a bugger! Enjoy, Antonio! Your english is better than my Spanish!

Dr. Scott Jones

[SL] Carrect VAT amount

[Kevin B. <kb...@fr...>]

Hi,

If the supplier sends me an invoice for =C2=A377.25 they may calculate t=
he 
VAT as =C2=A313.51.

Strictly speaking this is 13.51875 and SL calculates the amount as =C2=A3=
13.52.

What is the best way to resove this mismatch.

Currently I use petty cash to pay the extra 0.01 and so paying the same 
amount from the chequing account as the supplier has asked for.

Thanks,

Kevin

Re: [SL] Carrect VAT amount

[Richard P. <ri...@he...>]

Kevin Bailey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If the supplier sends me an invoice for =C2=A377.25 they may calculate =
the=20
> VAT as =C2=A313.51.
>
> Strictly speaking this is 13.51875 and SL calculates the amount as =C2=A3=
13.52.
>
> What is the best way to resove this mismatch.
>
> Currently I use petty cash to pay the extra 0.01 and so paying the same=
=20
> amount from the chequing account as the supplier has asked for.
>
>  =20
The trouble with this method is that you will be claiming back too much
VAT (all be it 1p)

If the item is non-inventory, you could use purchase transaction instead
of purchase invoice... enter the ex-vat amount, update. SL will have
calculated the VAT incorrectly... Untick the box next to VAT, and adjust
the value for the VAT actually paid.

The VAT guide states that you should calculate VAT per line on the
invoice, proper round the figure to 3 decimal places, then round DOWN to
2 places.

One of my suppliers calculates the VAT per line, but always uses proper
rounding, sometimes their invoices are out by 10p or more...

If i just left it to SL, i'd be loosing out on the VAT i can claim back..=
=2E

--=20

Richard Patterson          HelpQuick Limited
Tel: 0191 2582888          Fax: 0191 6408666
Jabber chat:  ri...@ja...
Web:     http://www.helpquick.co.uk

Re: [SL] Carrect VAT amount

[Roy W P. <arc...@mt...>]

I run into this problem with a few vendors depending on how their software handles rounding.

What I've been doing is:
-Create an additional "AP Transaction" for the vendor invoice in question.
-Enter the same vendor name, invoice number, and enter no value other than an overridden  tax amount.
 Enter either the tax as a positive or negative amount, and make a comment in the notes about why the transaction is being done.

Using the same invoice number groups the two transactions together so that everything shows up correct in the payments screen and in the tax account.
This works for me in my jurisdiction. It may work for you. I'm not an accountant.


NOTE:
What if I accidentally put a value in the non-tax box when I create the transaction ??
Easy....

I have a dummy account in the chart of accounts, called "PUT ME SOMEWHERE" which is numbered 0001.
The account it configured so it will show up in every account dropdown box.
Because the account is the lowest numbered one, SQL-Ledger defaults to it.
This way I quickly check if someone forgot to select the correct account when creating parts or entering transactions.
Simply... if there are ever any transactions in the "Put me somewhere" account.... then somthing is wrong and it can easily be fixed.

Cheers !
Roy

On Wednesday 02 August 2006 2:26 pm, Richard Patterson wrote:
> Kevin Bailey wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > If the supplier sends me an invoice for £77.25 they may calculate the 
> > VAT as £13.51.
> >
> > Strictly speaking this is 13.51875 and SL calculates the amount as £13.52.
> >
> > What is the best way to resove this mismatch.
> >
> > Currently I use petty cash to pay the extra 0.01 and so paying the same 
> > amount from the chequing account as the supplier has asked for.

[SL] Reconciliation - how's your experience

[Kevin B. <kb...@fr...>]

Hi all,

After using SL for 3-4 years I've run into problems with reconciliation.

I'm thinking of starting a fresh installation and keeping up-to-date 
with the latest version instead of using 2.4.7 which is the Debian 
stable version.

Could I have some (hopefully positive) feedback RE the reconciliation 
function in the latest version of SL?  I've found that the reconciled 
amount is sometimes different from when I left it - and changing the 
transactions whilst carrying out reconciliation causes problems.

I'd like to be reassured RE this issue before carrying out a few days 
work to re-setup my acccounts on SL.

Thanks,

Kevin

Re: [SL] Reconciliation - how's your experience

[GeorgeOsvald <geo...@ya...>]

On Thursday 03 August 2006 20:49, Kevin Bailey wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After using SL for 3-4 years I've run into problems with reconciliation.
>
> I'm thinking of starting a fresh installation and keeping up-to-date
> with the latest version instead of using 2.4.7 which is the Debian
> stable version.
>
> Could I have some (hopefully positive) feedback RE the reconciliation
> function in the latest version of SL?  I've found that the reconciled
> amount is sometimes different from when I left it - and changing the
> transactions whilst carrying out reconciliation causes problems.

If you re-post a trasaction in the reconciled period you will have to 
reconcile again. That is how it should be since you might have changed the 
amount yourself. 
I do not have any problems whatsoever with reconciliation.

> I'd like to be reassured RE this issue before carrying out a few days
> work to re-setup my acccounts on SL.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
> your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn
> cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> sql-ledger-users mailing list
> sql...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users

Re: [SL] Reconciliation - how's your experience

[david <da...@ke...>]

On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 11:49 +0100, Kevin Bailey wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After using SL for 3-4 years I've run into problems with reconciliation.
> 
> I'm thinking of starting a fresh installation and keeping up-to-date 
> with the latest version instead of using 2.4.7 which is the Debian 
> stable version.
> 
> Could I have some (hopefully positive) feedback RE the reconciliation 
> function in the latest version of SL?  I've found that the reconciled 
> amount is sometimes different from when I left it - and changing the 
> transactions whilst carrying out reconciliation causes problems.
> 
> I'd like to be reassured RE this issue before carrying out a few days 
> work to re-setup my acccounts on SL.

I've found that reconciliation can sometimes be confusing, although I've
never seen it actually fail. 

If you change a previously reconciled transaction in any way, SL
requires you to reconcile it again, which is exactly as it should be.
That can give you some odd looking results. If you re-reconcile,
everything should resolve. If it doesn't, it means you have broken your
reconciliation. I've never seen SL break the reconcile - it's always
turned out to be my mistake.

In one version of SL, reconcile started bundling all transactions of a
given date, which I found to be very difficult. There is now a button to
give detail or summary. I always use the detail and that works for me.

[SL] moving suppliers, customers, parts and services

[Kevin B. <kb...@fr...>]

Hi,

Is there an easy way to move the suppliers, customers, parts and 
services to another database to be used on a fresh install of SL?

Thanks,

Kevin

Re: [SL] Reconciliation - how's your experience

[David T. <ta...@ex...>]

On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 11:49 +0100, Kevin Bailey wrote:

> I'm thinking of starting a fresh installation and keeping up-to-date 
> with the latest version instead of using 2.4.7 which is the Debian 
> stable version.
Why not use the Debian unstable package. I seems to be up-to-date. I
agree: the stable version is to out of date.

> 
> Could I have some (hopefully positive) feedback RE the reconciliation 
> function in the latest version of SL?
I only ever reconcile one cheque account, and its never been a problem.
I do this to double-check that all cheque account transactions are
entered into SL, by confirming that the end balance agrees with what the
online bank says it should be. Since I download the transactions from
the bank website into a spreadsheet, and key them into SL while viewing
them there, its almost an unecessary task, except for the very odd keyin
error. However the reconciliation task takes 10 seconds to do, so its
worthwhile.

>   I've found that the reconciled 
> amount is sometimes different from when I left it

!!?? What do you mean? Do some of your SL figures grow old and fade away
overnight? :-)

>  - and changing the 
> transactions whilst carrying out reconciliation causes problems.
Um... since there is an 'ACID' database holding your SL data, you need
to NOT change transactions while reconciling, else whichever task you
start and stop first and last will determine whether the reconcile is
immediately out of date or not. Or put simply, dont reconcile while
changing transactions, or you will be shifting the goalposts in the
middle of the game.

Re: [SL] Carrect VAT amount

[Olle N. <ol...@pa...>]

I know better way:
I added new service, no price, no pcs, no VAT.
Number RO and description Rounding

Now I can adjust Invoice value as I need, when needed, I add line 
Rounding with price 0.01, when needed, I add line Rounding with price 
-0.05 etc.
Then there is no need for double AP Transaction, what was very painfull 
for me to remember.
I think this is the best way to do that.

Roy W Pennington wrote:
> I run into this problem with a few vendors depending on how their software handles rounding.
>
> What I've been doing is:
> -Create an additional "AP Transaction" for the vendor invoice in question.
> -Enter the same vendor name, invoice number, and enter no value other than an overridden  tax amount.
>  Enter either the tax as a positive or negative amount, and make a comment in the notes about why the transaction is being done.
>
> Using the same invoice number groups the two transactions together so that everything shows up correct in the payments screen and in the tax account.
> This works for me in my jurisdiction. It may work for you. I'm not an accountant.
>   


-- 
Olle Niit
Teknet Arvutid OÜ
tel 53 767 888
ol...@pa...

Re: [SL] Carrect VAT amount

[R P. <arc...@mt...>]

Not a bad idea Olle.
That should help a few people.

But, the problem is, that method adjusts the subtotal...not the TAX.
I need a way to adjust the tax....not the subtotal.


Cheers !
Roy


On Monday 30 October 2006 8:28 am, Olle Niit wrote:
> I know better way:
> I added new service, no price, no pcs, no VAT.
> Number RO and description Rounding
> 
> Now I can adjust Invoice value as I need, when needed, I add line 
> Rounding with price 0.01, when needed, I add line Rounding with price 
> -0.05 etc.
> Then there is no need for double AP Transaction, what was very painfull 
> for me to remember.
> I think this is the best way to do that.
> 
> Roy W Pennington wrote:
> > I run into this problem with a few vendors depending on how their software handles rounding.
> >
> > What I've been doing is:
> > -Create an additional "AP Transaction" for the vendor invoice in question.
> > -Enter the same vendor name, invoice number, and enter no value other than an overridden  tax amount.
> >  Enter either the tax as a positive or negative amount, and make a comment in the notes about why the transaction is being done.
> >
> > Using the same invoice number groups the two transactions together so that everything shows up correct in the payments screen and in the tax account.
> > This works for me in my jurisdiction. It may work for you. I'm not an accountant.

Re: [SL] Carrect VAT amount

[Paul L. <pj...@in...>]

WIth regard to adjusting VAT rounding differences on AP invoices, we  
found this works well to adjust the tax:

- set up a service "VATable rounding" which is taxable (price 0.01)
- set up another service "NON VATable service" which is non taxable  
(price 0.01)

You can then combine different quantities of these services, positive  
and negative, to adjust your tax without affecting the net total.

For example, to increase tax, add a positive quantity of VATable  
rounding service and then add an equal negative quantity of NON  
VATable rounding - this leaves your net total unchanged but increases  
the amount of tax.

We have been using this for a few years now and whilst we end up with  
two extra lines on the occasional AP invoice, we find it works really  
neatly and our ledger then balances to our suppliers without having  
to write amounts off or back etc.

Does that sound useful?

Paul.

On 30 Oct 2006, at 21:13, R Pennington wrote:

> Not a bad idea Olle.
> That should help a few people.
>
> But, the problem is, that method adjusts the subtotal...not the TAX.
> I need a way to adjust the tax....not the subtotal.
>
>
> Cheers !
> Roy

Re: [SL] Carrect VAT amount

[R P. <arc...@mt...>]

Paul.. that is brilliant !

Thanks for the reply.

Cheers,
Roy P

On Monday 30 October 2006 4:24 pm, Paul Langard wrote:
> WIth regard to adjusting VAT rounding differences on AP invoices, we  
> found this works well to adjust the tax:
> 
> - set up a service "VATable rounding" which is taxable (price 0.01)
> - set up another service "NON VATable service" which is non taxable  
> (price 0.01)
> 
> You can then combine different quantities of these services, positive  
> and negative, to adjust your tax without affecting the net total.
> 
> For example, to increase tax, add a positive quantity of VATable  
> rounding service and then add an equal negative quantity of NON  
> VATable rounding - this leaves your net total unchanged but increases  
> the amount of tax.
> 
> We have been using this for a few years now and whilst we end up with  
> two extra lines on the occasional AP invoice, we find it works really  
> neatly and our ledger then balances to our suppliers without having  
> to write amounts off or back etc.
> 
> Does that sound useful?
> 
> Paul.
> 
> On 30 Oct 2006, at 21:13, R Pennington wrote:
> 
> > Not a bad idea Olle.
> > That should help a few people.
> >
> > But, the problem is, that method adjusts the subtotal...not the TAX.
> > I need a way to adjust the tax....not the subtotal.
> >
> >
> > Cheers !
> > Roy