General Ledger code starting with 0


In Bosnia and Herzegovina (but in other countries as well) we have fixed assets in general ledger starting with number 0xxxx. Is it possible to enable the General Ledger code to start with zerro, because what now happens is that I want e.g. Gl 022 and I get only 22 :slight_smile:

Thank you,

p.s. Please continue this great job you are doing with!!

You need to clarify your question. The Item code for fixed assets will accept text and leading zeroes. These are fixed and show up in the dropdown box for selecting the asset when the Fixed assets account is selected on transactions.

Perhaps you are referring to the account Code in the chart of accounts? This field accepts only integers and ignores leading zeroes as a result.

Please be more specific and you will get a better answer.

He is referring to the account Code in the chart of accounts. I believe we have discussed this before and the answer was no.

@Dino_Bojcic the workaround I’m using is the code in the text, so instead of:

022 fixed asset

I use:
blank fixed asset (022)

1 Like

Me too. Code inside the text since we have to use letters by law.

Placing alpha-numeric codes in the account name is a smart choice. Understand that the only concrete function of the Code field in account definitions is to position accounts or groups in the chart of accounts. The ability to use this field for numerical account numbering schemes is a side effect. That works for many because a lot of account numbering schemes are purely numerical.

The only disadvantage of putting account codes within names is losing the ability to generate reports with or without codes. But if you go to all that trouble to assign codes, why wouldn’t you want to show them, unless of course they are only positioning numbers, like 1, 2, 3, etc?

I didn’t realize this until now. So maybe we need one code for position and another field for the actual account code? Probably too complicated though.

And, maybe this should go in a separate topic, but having the ability to position the accounts via number codes and not have the ability to sort accounts in reports using the same codes is frustrating. For example the General Ledger Summary here is expected to show accounts from 0 to 9 in that order; it’s sort of an established practice. Having to explain every time when sharing the report with someone, that the software I’m using doesn’t have sorting is extremely time consuming.

Yes, it does. The question being discussed in this topic is whether the Code field it uses to sort accepts letters and leading zeroes. I have no opinion about the way sorting is implemented. But the fact is, nothing in the program keeps you from labeling accounts with any scheme you want and putting them in any order you want. You yourself are already using the solution. That approach allows you to list account numbers before or after the account name. Simultaneously, the built-in Code field definitely does allow you to sort reports. I am not sure what you meant by that comment.

According to the Law in Bosnia and Herzegovina we have assigned general ledger as a combination of numbers and letters, where all GLs starting with 0xxx are related to the Assets of the company,

e.g. 0221xx are PCs.

Therefore for the reporting purposes I need to have all GLs numbered. I have solved it by having no.9 in front of the GL, so this case above is 90221xx - PCs. Not so convenient but 9 is the only number that is out of the scope of our regulations.

This has been debated many times. There still isn’t a solution that solves this. I do something similar by putting the number in a bracket by the name, for example (0221xx) PCs.

To be honest, I just do not understand why is it so difficult to implement into software :slight_smile:

I mean, if we have all other numbers, why not 0 as well?

The way it is set up now, the field for the account code accept only numbers. 0221 is not a number.

1 Like

Manager uses account codes for only one purpose—controlling presentation order. That is why the input allows only integer numbers. It is only a fortunate byproduct that you can use account codes to represent numbering schemes. Most such schemes start with 1XXX for assets, 2XXX for liabilities, and so on. So it usually is not an issue.

Seriously, who will object if your 0221 account is represented on internal reports as 221? Are you required by law to submit any Manager reports to your government? Is there any auditor who would not understand that notation? Surely that would be easier to understand and justify than 90221.

It’s possible to confuse people, as there is a 221 code as well as 0221 in the official chart of accounts.