On 28 May 2008, at 07:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >> On 27 May 2008, at 18:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> ... In the UK ... there is a requirement that invoices be >>> consecutively >>> numbered. >> >> Is this new? >> >> I did a "starting your own business" course at the local Chamber of >> Commerce before I became self-employed 3 or 4 years ago, and my >> understanding at that time was that invoice numbers had to be >> *unique*, rather than consecutive. > > I was told this by my accountant. The tax trolls get very unhappy if > they perceive gaps in your numbering (what are you hiding in the gaps, > you traitor?). I'll ask him again when I see him.
Yes, but there's an obvious difference between: 00042 00043 00044 00046 (missing number precedes) and: 20080501 20080502 20080503 20080512 (issued on the last day of May) 20080601 ... 20090101 If one accepts that date-based invoice numbers are acceptable (and I contend the taxman might do so), no-one expects to see invoice number 20081301, and the "gap" between 20080512 and 20080601 is quite logical & reasonable. It's the anomalies that raise the taxman's hackles, not the choice of implementation. Stroller. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Ledger-smb-users mailing list Ledger-smb-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-users
