Could you explain that to me?
The documentation (design document) says that the value of an account is equal to the splits in it plus the sum of all of the subaccounts. If some are income and others are expenses, I don't see how that can be true.
The design document also causes me to worry because it does not sound like the engine is using GAP rules. By that I mean that:
Liabilities = Assets + Owners Equity
So, the sum of the splits in a transaction do not sum up to 0, they balance out -- which is a more complex question. i.e. If I pay from an asset (e.g. Cash) to a liability (e.g. Note), the equation looks like:
-100 (Note Liability account) = -100 (Cash asset account)
It should not (from an accountant's perspective) look like:
0 = -100 (Cash account) + 100 (Liability account)
The same is true for income and expense. If I pay for gas from my salary income it would look like:
100 (salary income) = 100 (gas expense)
But if gas is a child of salary, it seems to me that it would be incorrect:
+- 100 salary |-+- 100 gas
would make salary be 200
On Jul 24, 2004, at 10:02 PM, Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:31:55AM -0500, Perry Smith was heard to remark:So, I'm hearing that an income account can have a child that is an expense account. O.k. That seems odd to me but o.k.
_______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
