On 1/25/2022 2:14 PM, Adrien Monteleone wrote:
If your needs aren't that complicated, there is nothing wrong with contra-accounts however. Accountants use them fairly regularly.
That's because accountants think in terms of debits and credits. All a "contra account" is is an account where the balance is not what would normally be expected for an account of that type. A credit balance where a debit balance would be expected or a debit balance where a credit balance would be expected.
Even if you don't intend to use a "contra account" you might end up with one. For example, not that long ago (here) was a time period where "overdraft protection" was available with checking accounts (for some customers) and that as a less temporary arrangement familiar to our fellow users say in the UK. In other words, your checking account would be an asset (under "current assets" and normally would have a debit balance. But what if you wrote checks for more than what was in the account? With an arrangement with the bank to allow "overdrafts" not to exceed some agreed limit instead of bouncing the check, the account would go to a credit balance. That amount would of course be a liability but you don't move the account in the CoA << but for the duration of the overdraft condition, it is a ":contra account" >>
With a little imagination you should be able to come up with scenarios where an account of type of income or expense temporarily has the "wrong type" balance and hence is "contra".
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.
