How is it not readable? It might confuse you, but it looks perfectly legible.
Yes, because that is the day they were applied to the invoice, which is what the mini-statement presents. The bank transactions themselves are still recorded as you entered them. The point here is that there are two separate transactions involving each payment: first the outgoing payment that becomes a supplier credit, second the application of the supplier credit to a specific invoice.
If you write bank payment at 21/06/2018 it means that it was paid on that date. I think it should be written differently or explained in the invoice unless you don’t want a problem with the tax authorities.
I think you might have difficulties with tax authorities if it were the other way around, particularly if you are using cash basis accounting. If you have an invoice with taxable line items, the tax is considered paid on the date of the payment, which would be the date the invoice is created. The current system shows that payment being applied on the invoice date, some some earlier date.
Sorry but I completely disagree. I’m talking about accrual based accounting. At 18/4 and at 20/6 I made a payment towards a credit. So if you write the two transactions after the total at 21/6 they should be against a credit not against two bank payments with a wrong misleading date.
The program is not designed only for accrual basis accounting. It must also accommodate cash basis users.
The program is designed to show the date the payments were applied to the invoice, not the date they were initially made. They could not be applied when they were first made because the invoice did not exist yet. And if you enter the reference number as you did for the 21/06 payment, it shows on the mini-statement. So there can be no misunderstanding. Those circumstances are not difficult to explain to any auditor.
You cannot write something that’s clearly wrong in accrual basis to accommodate cash basis users.
By internarional IAS/IFRS rules two of the basic assumptions are comprehensibility and comparability which are crearly violated by this document since a) you have to explain by words to an auditor and b) you have a reference id that brings to a bank/cash line that has a date different from what’s written in the document
Well, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. This all comes down to how one interprets the mini-statement. I don’t believe the description is wrong or misleading as it currently is for either accrual or cash basis. And since the transactions being referenced are clearly different financial events, there is no disagreement on dates. Adopting your suggestion would, in my opinion, make things wrong on both issues.