No name of account on Purchase Invoice

Name of account remains empty if Description is used.

This is intentional. Basically the idea is that Account will show only if item and line description is empty.

Therefore you can hide Account on printed document by specifying item or/and line description.

It is desirable to be able to hide Account, especially on documents printed for customers and suppliers as Account would your internal thing.

But I can see it doesn’t look intuitive if having multiple lines and not using description and item on all of them. So perhaps the improvement should be that Account is hidden only if all lines have line description or item specified.

1 Like

Indeed that would be a good solution.

I suppose there may be a point to having something entered for each line item, rather than leaving it totally blank. But I fail to see why you would ever enter a line on a transaction form with no item or description. That would would be a horrible practice, no different than random postings to accounts. Such a transaction would not be auditable, internally or externally. One would have to guess what it was for after the fact.

A better solution than listing the posting account, in my opinion, would be to throw transactions with blank line items into Suspense.

Assume you have an account called electricity bills then you do not need to enter a description as it is self explanatory and acceptable by an audit as well.

I don’t like this approach.

For some of my clients the COA is setup in such a way that the account names can serve as descriptions, at least for sales. Take this COA setup for example:

  • Creative service
  • Production
  • Event management

In this case it’s completely fine to leave the description blank since the accounts were so aptly named.

So I guess, lubos’ proposed solution is the way to go especially since it’s also the path of least resistance.

Well, I guess practices differ. What is acceptable in one location might not pass audit in another. I understand your point of view, although I would never recommend or follow your approach. The proposed solution would make the issue irrelevant for anyone who describes transaction lines by selecting an item or entering a description, so I cannot object too strenuously.