Version 2.3.19

Currently the Dutch translations for Delivery note and Packing slip are like this:

Delivery Note -> Leveringsbon: Prints a note WITH prices
Packing Slip -> Leverbevestiging: Prints a note WITHOUT prices

I think the English version Packing Slip without prices is correct. A packing slip is attached to the box and doesn't show prices.

However, the Dutch translation is confusing. I would expect to send a "Leverbevestiging" to the customer, with prices. And put a "Leveringsbon" without prices onto the box. But this is not the case. It is the other way around. I would suggest this:

Delivery Note -> Leveringsbon: Prints a note WITH prices
Packing Slip -> Pakbon: Prints a note WITHOUT prices

This is just one change. Since "Pakbon" cannot be confused with "Leveringsbon" it is not really needed to change "Leveringsbon". Although this might be even more correct:
Delivery Note -> Afleverbevestiging: Prints a note WITH prices
Packing Slip -> Pakbon: Prints a note WITHOUT prices

Not sure is this is still the same in 2.4. Apologies if it has been changed there, I have not upgraded yet.


Oooohhh.... I never followed up after Apmuthu's answer of 2016-09-11.  sad

Sorry about that! I was rushing to get my year reports to the tax dept... and then I had to leave office for a business trip.

I will check the new code and follow up.

@Cambell: Yes, it is a deposit. Sorry for the confusion. The customer made a bank payment, that is why my error.


Hi Apmuthu,

I did not void an allocated currency invoice. (Where did I say that?) And it is not necessarily an error. I think it is by design of FA.

What I explained is that is when I receive a bank payment I can enter the amount in foreign currency to be settled. When The amount in foreign currency is different from the (received amount * exchange rate), then the difference is not booked on Foreign Exchange P/L.


It makes sense to mention that, doesn't it?  :\ Sorry.
Versie 2.3.19 Build 04.01.2014


This question is related to this post:
However, the mentioned question is related to correctly settling an invoice when the exchange rate is different during invoicing and payment. My problem is not the settling, that is correct.

I have tried to find other (more recent) posts on this subject, but I haven't found them.

The problem is this:
My company currency is USD
I have a customer in EUR
The Foreign Currency Exchange rate is different from the real exchange rate.
(This happens if you use a fixed Exchange rate throughout the year)

Say the EUR-USD exchange rate is 1.1 when I issue the invoice.
I invoice the customer for EUR 800,- = USD 880,-
My G/L Acounts Receivable is debited for USD 880,-

Now I receive the payment. But the exchange rate has changed to 0.987
The costumer deposits EUR 800,-
But I receive only USD 790,-

When I do a "Bank Account Payment Entry" I record this:
Payment received: USD 790,-
Settled A/R amount: EUR 800,-

After all, I want this invoice to be settled in full.
The result is the customer invoice is settled.

However, my Accounts Receivable G/L account is credited for only USD 790,-
Which leaves a balance on Accounts Receivable for USD 90,-

This is awkward, because at the end of the period I see Account Receivable: USD 90,-
When I go and look in the Report "Sales -> Customer and Sales Reports -> Customer Balances"
I see none of my customers has an open balance.
So I can't locate why Accounts Receivable has a positive balance as all customers paid in full.

This is all correct (it is not a bug).
But now I should adjust somehow my Accounts Receivable.
I need to make this entry:
Exchange Rate P&L: USD 90,- Debit
Accounts Receivable: USD 90,- Credit

Now the the Accounts Receivable is zero, which is correct.
And I have a loss on Exchange Rates, which is also correct.
I assumed the EUR to be worth more.

The error (if you want to call it like that) is made while entering the bank payment.
I receive USD 790,- and I settle an invoice of USD880,-
While based on the exchange rate I should have received USD 880,-

Question is There is a difference in the amount used for invoice settlement, and the amount booked on Accounts receivable.  Why is this difference not booked automatically on "Exchange Rate P&L account".


This question is about the menu Purchases -> Supplier and Purchasing Reports -> Supplier Balances. My aim is to see the value of the transaction with a given supplier during a given period. When I request this report, it shows the initial balance, all the transactions and the final balance.

The final balance is the sum of the initial balance and all the transactions.

For a given period I am not so much interested in what the inital balance was, but much more what the transactions were. When I want to know just the value of the transactions, I have to substract the initial balance amount from the final balance amount.

Of course it can be done, but it is an additional action.

Is it designed this way, or am I doing something wrong?


That is useful.
Thank you


Never thought of doing that since I was on the payment allocation page.
But yes, it makes sense to allocate an amount to a transaction regardless whether it is a payment or deposit.

So problem solved.
Thank you very much.


Hello all,

This is the siutuation:
The customer has $1400 open invoices.
The customer pays $1700. That is $300 too much.

I enter a bank deposit for this customer for $1700 (I receive money)
After that I allocate $1400 payments for the open invoices.
The amount left to allocate is $300

Then I make a bank payment for $300 for this same customer. (I pay money to the customer)
The bank account is credited with $ 300 -- correct.
The Accounts Receivable is debited with $300 -- correct

However, there is still that $300 left to allocate for this customer.

I think that when I receive a payment, the amount left to allocate is increased for this customer. -- correct
When I pay the same some customer, the amount left to allocate should decrease for this customer. That does not happen.

I am using FA 2.3.19
I also downloaded in installed the snapshot from 2014-08-30.
But the same behavior remains.


Hi apmuthu,
Thanks for taking a look into this.

apmuthu wrote:

It is possible you may have missed out some data that may refer to the original company number in it's foreign keys....

I hope not. At various other instructions on this site about importing and exporting a company it is recommended to rename the company tables from X_* to Y_*. So I assumed it is safe.

apmuthu wrote:

Also any newly added accounts in the masters as well as users and their ACLs may be missing too besides exchange rates.

That is why I took the default CoA as an example. All tables which were not filled in the default CoA I did not fill in my clone. That means that all data in the default CoA tables may or may not refer to each other. But in no case anyhting in the populated tables can refer to something in the empty tables. So in my assumption: when I have a consistent database I can empty the same tables which are empty in the default CoA. Not so?

apmuthu wrote:

Export the account and inventory masters and import them into a newly created company and set the preferences but all this only after you have installed and activated existing non-default extensions if any.

What do you mean by "exporting"? Is that something to be done from within FA? If so, I overlooked that command.


I have been reasonably succesful with this.

First I had a look at the default Dutch CoA nl_NL-default.sql. It looked like all tables are defined in this SQL file, and into some tables data has been inserted. To be precise, 69 tables are defined, and into 39 of them data is inserted.

So I compared this with a backup of the existing company I wanted to clone. In this source file I compared every INSERT statement with the INSERT statement for the same table in the nl_NL-default.sql. When the INSERT statement was present in the nl_NL-default.sql, I maintained the statement from the backup. When in nl_NL-default.sql there was no data inserted into that table, I removed the INSERT statements from the backup file.

Then created the new company and noted the new table prefix. I replaced all prefixes in the table names with the proper prefixes for the new company in the backup file. And copied the backup file to account/company/3/backup. (3 is the number of the new company)

I logged in into the new company and restored the backup. So far everything seems to work all right.


I already have a company installed with 2 years worth of accounting entries. I need to set up a new company. The new company is a different entity.

However, in the first company I spent quite some time in setting up the correct accounting scheme and tax schemes.

I wished I could clone the first company minus the balance and transactions and articles. Keeping the vendors and suppliers would be nice but not that important.

Or is it simpler to start the company from scratch and enter the data (accounts and taxes) manually? Because after all that would be faster than breaking my head over exporting and importing tables?



(12 replies, posted in Banking and General Ledger)

carmelr wrote:

There is a simple solution that would be nice to have implemented.
A checkbox is added near the Date and also near the Bank Account (In payments). Unless the box is checked, the invoice or payment will not be accepted.

The ability to switch off the extra checkboxes should be made available either in the preferences menu or in the Company Setup menu.

I like the suggestion. Taking one step forward, instead of adding a checkbox, you could implement the option to blank the date field. And have no bank account set as default account but force the user to select one. Adding those options might even be easier both from implementation point of view as from a user point of view. There is no check box you can forget.

The same goes for creating a sales order for the wrong customer. There are so many mistakes which can be made inadvertently. Altough date and bank account occur most often with me.

BTW, paying from the wrong bank account is one of the least uncorrectable errors: a simple journal entry transferring an amount from one account to the other does the job. But it is awkward that the transactions show up in the bank book eventually.  Not making the mistake would be preferable.



(12 replies, posted in Banking and General Ledger)

tm wrote:

Just ignore iproaccount. It's one of those. smile

Hehe... I was upset, I admit. smile

tm wrote:

As for changing the transaction dates in the db... Just try it and see what happens. As long as you have a good backup, you should be able to get back to your current situation no matter what happens.

Yeah, I figured I could try it. My fear was that I changed something which would affect certain queries which I would not see until the year end or so. After all I am poking directly in the database, and if I change something only half my database is inconsistent. If no error occur while testing but suddenly after entering 300 transactions report X or Y proves to be inconsistent you'd wish never to start a business.

I have been using OpenERP 6.0 before, so I can tell you how it feels when your database is non-consistent and you have no idea where the problem is. Only in the case of OpenERP it is the application itself which creates the inconsistencies, you don't have to poke into the database yourself.

Anyway, in the mean time I have finished entering 2013 into FA a few months ago. Now I am maintaining the accounting on a regular basis and all for 2014. A date which is off for a few weeks is awkward but no disaster. And I also learned a very important command: Remove a transaction. So instead of crediting an invoice I can simple remove and re-enter it. Which is satisfactory.



(12 replies, posted in Banking and General Ledger)

You did not read what I wanted to do, you did not read the reason why I need to change the date, you did not understand that the case is exceptional and a workaround to get a backlog entered correctly. Instead you are just blurting out some common phrases saying that it is undesired. Had you read my post you would have known that I knew that already.

I am sure according to your standards is it much better keep in incorrectly booked invoice received in May 2013 in Februari 2014, right?


I can confirm that the credit invoices do not appear in the list of payable invoices anymore.


Thanks. For the moment I am fine. I explained the problem in such a detailed way, I won't be confused the next few weeks smile.
The request was focused on an improvement for new users.
I will include the new translations at the next update.


am totally lost now. This is what I got yesterday:

-rw-r--r-- 1 jlinkels jlinkels   28218 Feb  4 23:03 invoice_db.bin
-rw-r--r-- 1 jlinkels jlinkels    9995 Feb  4 23:04 suppalloc_db.bin

IIRC I was working in Chrome when I downloaded them.
Also in Chrome, when I tried to post this answer, it wouldn't accept the pun bot question. Using a different browser did accept.

Now when I downloaded the files with the different bowser they saved correctly as .inc.
And yes, these bin files were readable and looked like normal php.

Anyway, today is a new day with new challenges smile


Thanks very much Joe.
I'll download the new files and install them.
But the files are .bin files. Can I simply rename them to .inc?


erwindebruin wrote:

Ok, maybe we can change the "betreft" translation in. But is "relatie" really a good translation? The "betreft" translation is only displayed when the "diversen" payment is selected. When "klant" or "leverancier" is selected (which are really "relaties") the word "betreft" isn't displayed. I think the "diversen" entry isn't concerned to a known "relatie" as listed in the debtors or creditors list. But it is concerned a general bankpayment. So maybe we can change the text "betreft" to something like "inzake" ?

No, because "inzake" still refers to the subject or description, and not to the payee.
There are two reasons for my proposal.
1. In the English version the same label shows "To the order of", which really means the payee, and not the subject or description.
2. When I make a payment to a supplier, I can choose from a drop-down list. Say I choose Amazon. I make the payment and retrieve the Journal Entry. The journal entry shows Relatie: Amazon
Now I make the same payment using "Diversen". Say I choose "Parkeren". Now when I retrieve the Journal entry I see: Relatie: Parkeren. Well, I did not make the payment to parkeren, I made it to the Municipality Amsterdam. Now, in the first line of the journal enrty where the debited account is shown, I expect the description.
Like: 4300 Reis- en verblijfskosten              Parkeren

I think the suggested change of the translation "Banksaldo" isn't correct because the amount displayed is the current bank balance (Banksaldo) isn't it?

Maybe you are looking at a different screen than I do.
I am talking about Tab Purchases -> Payments to Suppliers (Foreign currency only)
(In Dutch: Inkopen -> Invoeren leverancierbetaling) and choose a supplier which uses a foreign currency.
Say your system currency is EUR and the supplier is paid in USD.
You have entered an invoice for $130
The exchange rate at that time is 0.77
The EUR amount is 100,-
Now you make your payment for $130 so the invoice is cleared.
But your bank account shows EUR 110,- charged because the exchange rate has changed.
Now you enter as amount paid on the invoice $130,-
But the Bank amount is EUR 110,-
So the Exchange profit/loss is calculated correctly.

In other word, you have to enter two amounts: one is the invoice amount, the second the bank transfer amount.

In no way you should enter the Bank balance in that field, it has nothing to do with it.

Not only is the Journal entry for Exchange Profit Loss fully incorrect, the English version also says Bank amount in the label, not Bank balance.


I have a suggestion for two minor improvements in the Dutch translation.

Tab Banking & Genral Ledger -> Bank account payment entry.
The text field label To the order of is currently translated as Betreft: (Concerns)
I would suggest to translate this label as Relatie: because that is how is shows up on the transaction statement.

Tab Purchases -> Payments to Suppliers (Foreign currency only)
Bank amount is translated as Bank saldo (Balance)
Better would be Bank mutatie or Bank bedrag



This might or might not be related with this post:

FA version 2.3.19
Actually Apmuthu's repo from 2014-01-03, see this post

Sequence is this:
I have purchased goods, received those goods and paid the invoice.
Now I discover that I should return the goods.
I return the goods and I receive a credit invoice from the supplier.
So in the Purchases tab I enter a Credit Invoice
During editing the Credit Invoice I can select goods which I have returned.
On the Credit Invoice screen I enter the credit invoice and the goods returned.

This is all completely correct.
Accounts Payable is debited.
Goods Transactions shows that I have returned the goods from stock.
Stock account is credited.

Now this is where the error is:
When I go to Purchases tab -> Enter Supplier payments.
The Credit Invoice shows up in the list of eligible invoices to pay.
I can select the Credit Invoice to pay
When I select the Credit Invoice and select Pay All, the credit invoice is actually paid.
That is, Accounts Payable is debited.
My bank account is credited.

I don't think it should be this way. Two options:
1. Either the Credit Invoice should not show up in the list of invoices to pay,
or a payment should not be accepted.
2. If the Credit invoice shows up and is selected to be "paid", then actually the A/P should be credited and the bank account must be debited.

Option #2 is easy, but not really correct in the sense that you don't pay anything. The transactions are correct though.


To provide an answer to a comment to something which was not the question smile

This happened when I had to make quite a few changes in airline bookings. Usually you do this on the airline's web site, but KLM's web site is always in various stages of beta testing, and simply does not allow you to make changes on-line. Hence I had to do it by phone.

Now there is a penalty when you change a ticket (fine)
But there is also often a fare change involved as well.
And sometimes they issue a complete new ticket for a leg.
The new ticket contains the new fare, which includes the fare change and the already paid ticket price.
So sometimes you have an invoice for a penalty alone, sometimes for penalty + fare change, sometimes a new ticket invoice.

Now the KLM invoicing system is pretty chaotic as well for this aspect, and sometimes they sent 1, 2 or 3 invoices. Sometimes each invoice is for a separate amount, sometimes for a combined amount.

Once I complained and with the proper e-mails and invoices at that time I could reconstruct what my costs were and that seemed right.

Problem is that when I entered all those invoices in FA I completely forgot this mess.
Once I entered I tried to match them with the CC payments. And they didn't match. And they don't match by a big difference. The figures in the example are about right.

That is how it happened. No tax avoidance involved.

See, in this country I don't pay VAT on foreign purchases, KLM doesn't charge VAT because they don't have to. And it is no use to increase costs to avoid tax on profit because we don't pay tax on profit.


This is the situation:

I made some telephone orders with the airline. So I gave them my credit card#. After a while I received and invoice by e-mail. Now when I match the credit card payments with the invoices, I see that there are differences between the invoice and the amount actually paid. Sometimes I paid more, sometimes less. The differences are too large to shuffle them in banking costs.

What I need to do:
(1) Anyway I need to pay the invoice so it is marked paid and does not show an open amount.
(2) When the amount I paid is higher than the invoice, this amount should go somewhere.
(3) When the amount I paid is lower than th invoice, the amount should go somewhere as well, preferably in the same account as when I paid to much.

This is what I tried so far:
Amount paid is higher: Just pay the invoice and enter the account paid as the amount which was actually paid.
Assume the invoice is $240
Amount paid is $340
The journal entry looks like this:
Accounts payable                       340
Bank                                                    340
Accounts payable was only credited with $240 when I entered the invoice.
So I have to make a correction on A/P in Memorial:
Misc costs:                                 100
Accounts payable:                               100

For actual amount paid lower than the invoice, I need to pay the complete invoice amount. If not, the invoice is never marked as paid. So I enter a purchase discount.
Assume the invoice is $240
Amount paid is $160
When paying I enter a supplier discount of $80. So the journal entry is this:
Accounts payable                        240
Supplier discount                                    80
Bank                                                      160
Then when this is booked I must make another memorial to transfer the discount to misc costs:
Supplier discount                          80
Misc costs                                                80

From an accounting point of view this is eventually correct. But is there an easier way to handle differences in invoice amount and amount actually paid?

I was thinking about additional invoices or credit invoices, but since they were not actually supplied by the supplier, it is difficult to enter a non existing invoice.