Issue 10371

Title
Add boolean field to account_asset_line to be able to exclude specific lines from "Create Assets Moves" action.
Priority
feature
Status
need-eg
Nosy list
Raphael, Timitos, ced, pokoli
Assigned to
Keywords

Created on 2021-04-29.11:47:31 by Raphael, last changed 1 week ago by Raphael.

Messages

Author: [hidden] (Raphael)
Date: 2021-04-29.15:04:57

Info: "Print Deprecation Table" (a cool feature i have not been aware of yet...) will not deliver correct results if account_asset_lines are removed. So we have to go the way and set "start date" to a date in the first fiscal year and work with "deprecated amount".

Author: [hidden] (Raphael)
Date: 2021-04-29.14:02:14

@ced: as so often you are correct => great point! "There is no guarantee that the value of the asset at the new starting date is the same result as the computation of both system." very true!!!

Than maybe one could rethink the "start date on report" and "start date" for "Create Assets Moves" strategy.

Alternative: Info/Warning to user if user creates asset with start date before existing fiscal year.
Why one would let create the user 100 assets without warning and in the end complains about missing fiscal year.
We thought assets module will just ignore non existing fiscal years or at least ask what to do.

Author: [hidden] (ced) Tryton committer Tryton translator
Date: 2021-04-29.13:36:15

I do not agree that it is a correct method. There is no guarantee that the value of the asset at the new starting date is the same result as the computation of both system.
This can only be achieved by explicit set this amount as the amount - depreciated amount.
So the only problem is to store the initial start date of depreciation (if it is really needed).

Author: [hidden] (pokoli) Tryton committer Tryton translator
Date: 2021-04-29.13:32:43

We can not provide a general solution for a rules which we do no now.
If you already solved the issue and you think there is nothing else to do please mark this as resolved.

Otherwise we need to know the rules to be able to solve them.

Author: [hidden] (Raphael)
Date: 2021-04-29.13:26:02

We reported the issue to the general public. We thought it would be helpful to others. For ourselves it is solved as described. Was a matter of 5 minutes in the database.
In Austria there are rules used such as Annual and semi-annual rule which indicate the real start date of a deprecation which can be different from purchase date. But its not really related to the issue of non existent fiscal years.
What really matters is the importance of having proper values on assets for tax offices and reports.

Of the real deprecation start date in the old accounting software was the 01.07.2013, than the deprecation start date in the new accounting software with such missing fiscal years should again be the 01.07.2013 no matter if assets module can deal with missing fiscal years or not. Excluding such generated account_asset_lines from move creation would solve this issue and keep asset representation correct.

Author: [hidden] (pokoli) Tryton committer Tryton translator
Date: 2021-04-29.13:09:50

Could you explain which are the Austrian rules used to compute the date?
Which information needs to be reported?
Could you please provide some examples?

Otherwise we can not now how to properly solve your problem.

Author: [hidden] (Raphael)
Date: 2021-04-29.12:42:06

@ced "This is the purchase date."

should read "buy an asset"
=> well not in Austria. In Austria you can buy an asset, but the date when deprecation starts is another date related to some specific rules in Austria. Both informations have to be reported to tax office.

Author: [hidden] (Raphael)
Date: 2021-04-29.12:39:26

@ced "This is the purchase date."

=> well not in Austria. In Austria you can by an asset, but the date when deprecation starts is another date related to some specific rules in Austria.

Author: [hidden] (ced) Tryton committer Tryton translator
Date: 2021-04-29.12:30:04
On 2021-04-29 12:01, Raphael Reumayr wrote:
> Start Date is the information when deprecation starts. Which would get represented on an report for tax office. 

This is the purchase date.
Author: [hidden] (Raphael)
Date: 2021-04-29.12:14:00

because we switched from old accounting software to new one. But sure we add assets from the years before. To us this is no issue anymore, we solved it via database by removing account_asset_line relation to asset + keeping all assets data (start date, deprecation amount etc.) correct.

Author: [hidden] (pokoli) Tryton committer Tryton translator
Date: 2021-04-29.12:04:49

Why you are creating assets that you do not have a fiscalyear?

Author: [hidden] (Raphael)
Date: 2021-04-29.12:01:41

Start Date is the information when deprecation starts. Which would get represented on an report for tax office.
Why this is a bug? After hours of asset creation and filling in proper information and setting assets into "Run" mode... users without such fiscal years would not be able to proceed any further.

Author: [hidden] (ced) Tryton committer Tryton translator
Date: 2021-04-29.11:54:24

I do not see why such feature would be needed. You can specify the proper start date and depreciated amount to correspond to the starting of the accounting.

Author: [hidden] (ced) Tryton committer Tryton translator
Date: 2021-04-29.11:51:15

Definitely not a bug.

Author: [hidden] (Raphael)
Date: 2021-04-29.11:47:31

Suggestion: Add boolean field to account_asset_line to be able to exclude specific lines from "Create Assets Moves" action. This is necessary if one adds assets with start date before existing fiscal years. Otherwise "Start Date" would not reflect the true value.

An alternative would be a date field like: "ignore move creation for account_asset_line before date".

History
Date User Action Args
2021-04-29 15:04:57Raphaelsetmessages: + msg67077
2021-04-29 14:02:14Raphaelsetmessages: + msg67076
2021-04-29 13:36:15cedsetmessages: + msg67075
2021-04-29 13:32:43pokolisetmessages: + msg67074
2021-04-29 13:26:02Raphaelsetmessages: + msg67073
2021-04-29 13:09:50pokolisetmessages: + msg67070
2021-04-29 12:52:06Raphaelsetnosy: + Timitos
2021-04-29 12:42:06Raphaelsetmessages: + msg67069
2021-04-29 12:39:26Raphaelsetmessages: + msg67068
2021-04-29 12:30:04cedsetmessages: + msg67067

Showing 10 items. Show all history (warning: this could be VERY long)