I don't fully understanding the coding implications but would restricting the GL account to Supplier Control Account when selecting "Supplier" as a payment type from Cash Book payments mean less flexibility for a user?

As an accountant using FA, I find that the GL control accounts often don't balance to the subsidiary ledgers (like debtors, stock, suppliers).  This means lots of wasted time to try find out why.  To me, in my perhaps limited view, it seems better not to provide flexibility that has the potential to create problems. 

From the perspective of a user of FA it really would be better to restrict the GL account selection to Supplier Control Account (in our example) or, if this is not possible, then rather don't post the entry to the supplier account.

Mark

Please use the Supplier Payment form to do the normal payments to suppliers.

Making restrictions on this will make the flexibility go away.

/Joe

1. I processed a supplier payment using banking and general ledger payments
2. I selected "pay to supplier" as payment type and then selected the correct supplier
3. By mistake I then selected a GL account called printing and stationery (instead of supplier control account which the system defaults to when I select supplier as the payment type)
4. When I processed this payment Front updated the GL by DR Printing and Stationer and CR Bank and it also updated the supplier account.
5. But it does not update the Supplier Control Account.
6. The problem becomes that that supplier control account and the supplier aged analysis don't balance

The point to note is that it would really help if the user was prevented from changing the allocation from the default Supplier Control Account after selecting the payment as a "Supplier".  Probably the same with payment type as "Customer" 

The overall objective being that there seem to be a number of (subtle) ways to produce the wrong results in Front and closing these loopholes makes Front a better solution. 

Mark