I saw that Odoo has done this merge by simply put the account kind to the account type.
At first sight, it seems to work except for the view kind but this could be fixed if we consider account without type as a view.
The main advantage I see is that accountant understand the account type but not always the account kind as it is something specific to Tryton. So if kind is defined on the type, the account will not have to care about as creating account can happen often but creating type is much more rare.
To upload designs, you'll need to enable LFS and have an admin enable hashed storage. More information
Child items
...
Linked items
0
Link issues together to show that they're related.
Learn more.
In Spanish chart of accounts [1] there are a lot of accounts with same type but different kind. For example, accounts with the same profit and loss type they could have revenue or expense kind.
IMHO I think is not difficult for an account understand the account kind, in few minutes they understand perfectly the seven different kinds of accounts.
On 2015-09-24 17:51, Jordi Esteve wrote:
> In Spanish chart of accounts [1] there are a lot of accounts with same type but different kind. For example, accounts with the same profit and loss type they could have revenue or expense kind.
>
> IMHO I think is not difficult for an account understand the account kind, in few minutes they understand perfectly the seven different kinds of accounts.
So you mean that in Spain, in your profit and lost report, you don't
make the distinction between the profit and the lost?
Could you point me to example (I will not read all the chart of
account).
>> In Spanish chart of accounts [1] there are a lot of accounts with same type but different kind. For example, accounts with the same profit and loss type they could have revenue or expense kind.
>>
>> IMHO I think is not difficult for an account understand the account kind, in few minutes they understand perfectly the seven different kinds of accounts.
> So you mean that in Spain, in your profit and lost report, you don't
> make the distinction between the profit and the lost?
Yes, but some account kinds are related only to revenues, some account
kinds related only to expenses and other account kinds have both types.
> Could you point me to example (I will not read all the chart of
> account).
For example, there is an account kind named "Deterioration and results
on disposal of fixed assets". There are 6 accounts related to this kind
of type revenue and 6 accounts of type expense, for example:
Profits on investment property -> revenue
Loses on investment property -> expense
On 2015-09-24 19:14, Jordi Esteve wrote:
> >> In Spanish chart of accounts [1] there are a lot of accounts with same type but different kind. For example, accounts with the same profit and loss type they could have revenue or expense kind.
> >>
> >> IMHO I think is not difficult for an account understand the account kind, in few minutes they understand perfectly the seven different kinds of accounts.
> > So you mean that in Spain, in your profit and lost report, you don't
> > make the distinction between the profit and the lost?
> Yes, but some account kinds are related only to revenues, some account
> kinds related only to expenses and other account kinds have both types.
This sounds crazy (but I start to be used by Spanish craziness).
Any way, I don't see problem in creating two children kinds for each
types.
> > Could you point me to example (I will not read all the chart of
> > account).
>
> For example, there is an account kind named "Deterioration and results
> on disposal of fixed assets". There are 6 accounts related to this kind
> of type revenue and 6 accounts of type expense, for example:
>
> Profits on investment property -> revenue
> Loses on investment property -> expense
>>> Could you point me to example (I will not read all the chart of
>>> account).
>> For example, there is an account kind named "Deterioration and results
>> on disposal of fixed assets". There are 6 accounts related to this kind
>> of type revenue and 6 accounts of type expense, for example:
>>
>> Profits on investment property -> revenue
>> Loses on investment property -> expense
> Better to create to children kinds for each kind.
>
If we create children kinds, the profit and loss report or the balance
report will be a mess. The accountants will not understand them, the
authorities will not accept them.
So, if this issue is implemented, the work of Spanish accountants will
be harder instead of helping them.
On 2015-09-24 20:08, Jordi Esteve wrote:
> >>> Could you point me to example (I will not read all the chart of
> >>> account).
> >> For example, there is an account kind named "Deterioration and results
> >> on disposal of fixed assets". There are 6 accounts related to this kind
> >> of type revenue and 6 accounts of type expense, for example:
> >>
> >> Profits on investment property -> revenue
> >> Loses on investment property -> expense
> > Better to create to children kinds for each kind.
> >
>
> If we create children kinds, the profit and loss report or the balance
> report will be a mess. The accountants will not understand them, the
> authorities will not accept them.
I don't understand the rational here.
So having two children type will explode the mind of accountant while in
the same time you said that accountant understand in a minute the double
usage of kind and type. All this seems only based on your own opinions.
> So, if this issue is implemented, the work of Spanish accountants will
> be harder instead of helping them.
So for one type that needs to be split and this split will absolutly not
be done by accountant, their work is harder.
Please you have to explain much more in details because your thinking
can not be followed.
After discussing the case, we (rvnovaes and ced) have found out that account deferral should also be moved to the type of the account. We would also like to know if there is a direct (one to one) correspondence between non-deferral-->Income Statement and deferral-->Balance Sheet and Off Balance Sheet. If so, maybe the check boxes on the account could be supressed, because all the information needed would be if the account is deferral or not. Is there a case where the deferral information does not correspond to the reports? Would it restrict too much the configuration possibilities? It would mean that the 'other' kind would always be on the Balance Sheet.
I think it is even better to remove the kind field completely.
We added it to ease non-accountant user to fill form like product. But indeed with #3805 (closed), this can be eliminated as only accountant will be allowed to manage accounting categories.
The second usage is to compute the receivable/payable for a party. #5565 (closed) shows that nobody use the design of one account per party. So I think we simply rely on the account type being payable or receivable.
Following msg23169, the deferral property will be derived from the account type.
Here is the model proposal:
Account:
- name
- code
- parent
- type
- reconcile
- party required
- GL balance
- second currency
- taxes
- deferral: computed from account type (true: balance sheet, off-balance; false: income statement)
Account Type:
- name
- parent
- statement: balance sheet; income statement; off-balance (constraint same as parent)
- balance_type: payable, receivable, cash, income, other
- income_type (when balance_type is income)