have a component of barter trade but typically also contain a component of actual money transfer. As such they must be handled by Managers invoice or cash transaction mechanism.
A Counter trade / Recipient-created tax invoices with a vanishingly small money transfer is a pure barter trade. They can still be handled by Manager invoice or cash transaction mechanism using a zero value receipt/payment (or zero value counter trade invoice). Alternatively they could be handled very cleanly by a journal entry.
A choice the user can make. Personally I would used the same mechanism a I used for other similar transactions, just to keep similar things together.
In the latest version (20.8.86) it’s now possible to select customer or supplier on receipt/payment level.
If you select customer or supplier on receipt/payment level. Ability to select customer/supplier on line item level will be hidden as it is assumed every line item will belong to the customer/supplier on transaction level.
It would be good if bank rules will also allow entry of customer / supplier.
If added please enter the data at the transaction level, as in practice that is how all users will user this screen (except user who enter counter trade transactions and then only for those particular transactions).
Making the payee / payer field a menu where the contact type could be selected would enable the drop down list to show the entities the user is actually looking for. During data entry user aways know if they are looking for a customer or supplier. When reviewing transactions the the tax code implications would also be clearer.
In a new payment the menu would default to supplier. In a new receipt default to customer.
The interface has a high potential to confuse new users. Line item specification of customers and suppliers is only required by business who actually ever uses counter trade transactions (the minority) and then only for transactions which are counter trade transaction (a low percentage even business who use them). So in my opinion having such a complex screen as the default behavior is a strange user interface design choice. If the payee / payer field was a menu the option to select “Counter trade” could be used to disable the transaction level specification and enable line item specification of linked entity.
I think I will wait till an upgrade “recode” facility is available prior to trying to link my receipt/payments to suppliers
In my opinion the added reporting functionality of using predefined customers / suppliers outweighs the flexibility of free form entry, so I agree with phasing out the free form field. For users who really need an instant once only entry, they should predefine “A Customer” an “A supplier”
For point 2, differently, if I don’t select a Client or a Supplier in the header after defininig the accounts payable/receivable and relative Client or supplier selected Manager should automatically set the line tax settings for Client or Supplier.
I would concur - the addition of customer and suppliers to bank rules would be a lovely addition. One of the things that I lost moving to bank imports was the ability to save the customer/supplier enabling me to filter bank transactions based on customer/supplier.
@lubos I am very impressed with your very innovative idea of linking customers and suppliers to define sales and purchases and still maintain a single VAT code for tax implications as discussed in other topics. Never thought of that, but it does make a lot of sense. I am hoping that it will work out effectively.
However, the time has now come to enable customers and suppliers, employees etc to be categorised in a drop down menu to make it easier for people to select the correct entry. I fully agree with this. In fact, if you do work on this issue, could you do the same for inventory items and non-inventory items as I have the same problem with the same product being in both inventory and non-inventory items. Thanks.
That is exactly what has been implemented, but only so far for customers and suppliers. Other subsidiary ledgers are coming. You mentioned in another post that you hadn’t updated yet. When you do, you will see how this is developing. But you will also see that any receipt/payment no longer has a payer/payee and will require editing, even for defined customers/suppliers.
I just updated an hour ago. Rather on a test version, not my live version.
What I meant by suppliers and customers categorisation was being able to see what is a customer and what is a supplier in the drop down list. At the moment I have the list in alphabetical order, but this does not help if you have the same company as a client and supplier. How do you differentiate?
Yes I saw the issue with regards to not seeing the payee/payer even though I have always used pre-definid customers etc. I have already mentioned to the developer that this needs to be fixed asap as this is causing the biggest frustration right now for users that have updated.
Suppliers and customers still cannot be distinguished
Other kinds of Payers and Payees like capital accounts, claim payers and employees have different payment workflows.
There is now at least 4 possible places where customers / suppliers are entered and the fields keep moving around. This will result in nonsensical results like choosing a customer in the header then use another customer account under accounts receivable in the lines. Even worse, you can choose a customer in the header and a supplier in the lines. like this:
@Ealfardan It is actually programmable to have a drop down column where you can select customers/suppliers or you can use freetype to enter your own entry. So I would actually recommend that the payee/payer fields pull from the customer/supplier etc fields but also have the ability to type your own name in. If in the event that the decision is made to allow freeform contacts that are not in customer/supplier database.
This would be far better than two contact fields that essentially serve the same purpose.
I agree however with your point about capital accounts, claim payers and employees already having a different flow, but at the same time I can see how those payments could be aligned to work in the same way as the new customer/supplier design.
Are you on the latest version of Manager. Lubos fixed it so that when you put in a header for supplier/client it does not show that field in the transaction line.
I can’t comment on the tax and customers relationship, until people like @Hennie etc confirms whether this fixes their GST Worksheet problems. But it sounds workable.
I am not sure about the non account issue as I only have suppliers and customers linked to payments as I have a very different workflow to you and Tut.
I have used a mix of customers/suppliers and freeform payer/payee up to now and found it worked reasonably well.
However, I don’t have the VAT problems associated with the problem of identifying what kind of VAT transaction is involved.
I have a number of customers who make a payment once a year and who I do not put into customers as I do not need to issue invoices or follow payments - these a re annual memberships which are managed in a separate DB by a different person and we do not need to incorporate them into the accounting database other than as a total figure for each month
So I am now very wary of updating to the latest version …
I will use a test machine and a backup to see how it works - but I am on Tut’s side for now
What if a walk-in customer came, paid in cash and only shared his address?
What if (and I do have this a lot on a daily basis) I make collections on behalf of my customers from their clients, so I need to record the customer’s account but for display purposes show my customer’s clients in the addressee? This will happen a lot with delivery and courier companies. [Edit: and law firms as well, I have one of those ]
Maybe my words failed me there but there is no two contact fields. One field to choose the object which is the customer/supplier/employee/ whatever. The other field is the addressee which are totally different.
The other field is to type in the manual address either to override the address of the object you selected, or choose the account of your customer and address the receipt to someone else like the client of your customer. We used to be able to do this but not now and I have a client who is a delivery/courier company.
I am talking about choosing the customer in the header and then selecting his invoices in the lines. This was not fixed. Try it, you are even able to mention a customer in the headers and a pay the invoices of a different customer in the lines, or even worse, suppliers