I am sorry that you have so grossly misunderstood the post, so to clarify points for you.

Yes, and that was stated - “based on the formula factors” - note the “based”

That is, the formula factors are “**based**” upon the prescribed inputs for the jurisdiction.

Those factors are never illusory “estimates and approximations” as you mis-interrupted it.

So to re-write the statement to give you increased clarity:

Depreciation at best is an estimate based on the formula factors, prescribed by the jurisdiction.

Yes, and once again I will re-write the statement to give you increased clarity:

I always round the asset purchase and the depreciation to the nearest whole amount so that the BS > Asset and Prov for Depn accounts are always neat round amounts, with the rounding adjustment being posted to a P&L account.

For example, if a purchased asset is 2045.36, then 2045 goes to the asset and 0.36 goes to the P&L. So the primary entry always remain reconcilable with both the source transaction and the auditors.

For the depreciation rounding I refer you to your own advice in post #2 - “you can edit the automatic calculations before creating the depreciation entries”.

These rounding’s and the depreciation differential between 365 v’s 366 days are not material.

Using your own examples of 2016 - 5635.48 and 2017 - 5620.08, this 15.40 variation is immaterial to both the financial year and the fixed asset values, as it balances out over time with disposal / write off etc.

Depreciation is an estimate based upon **“arbitrary”** formula factors as set by a jurisdiction. For example, a vehicle in Country A might have a depreciation rate of 15% yet that same vehicle in Country B may have a depreciation rate of 20%. Therefore 365 or 366 days is just a arbitrary factor.