On 7/28/2020 10:23 PM, Dale Alspach wrote:
I am not confused. Here is a link to a CPA's site explaining the issue http://www.otcpas.com/advisor-blog/dual-signatures/#:~:text=By%20requiring%20two%20signatures%2C%20the,checks%20to%20a%20fictitious%20company. Dale
That depends on the bank. What that CPA is saying is that just because the organization decrees two signatures required does not make it so. It may well be the case that many banks will not allow that condition to be specified for accounts. But this is not true for all banks. I was assuming:
a) The bank allows this specification (but might in practice be lax about actually checking)
b) That an organizations whose rule was two signatures would use a bank that allows the specification.
He appears to be addressing the situation "the organization has this rule but is using a bank that does not allow accounts to be specified that way. Advising "still keep the rule". I was not considering this situation, one where the organization had the rule but continued to use a bank that would not support it.
Michael D Novack _______________________________________________ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information. ----- Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
