Let us assume there is a situation when I have an invoice from a supplier to my company (e.g. 1000 EUR). My company returns all the goods because of a problem. The supplier shall issue a credit invoice in amount of 1000 EUR, which I register in my system. As a result I will have (on behalf of the supplier) an account payable of 1000 EUR and an account receivable in the same amount. What is the preferred way of handling this situation, because there will be no money transferred, either way.
Should I generate a paymentApplication to both invoices? I want to see them as +1000 -1000 = 0 EUR.
The current data model and services do not support applying an invoice to an invoice, i.e. canceling part or all of one invoice with another. That is something I have considered but IMO is messy... even if it is a common practice in certain parts of the world (from my limited knowledge of it an archaic practice that isn't so commonly used any more). That could be supported though, I have certainly considered it (adding an entity or perhaps modifying PaymentApplication to support it, adding a service to do it and a corresponding GL posting service to balance AP/AR accounts).
Right now the best thing to do a cancel the original invoice, which does the proper reverse GL postings if the invoice has already been posted.
If you want both invoices in the system and canceling entries somewhere the currently supported approach is to use a FinancialAccount, basically use FinancialAccount payments to pay both invoices and then the balance of the FinancialAccount represents the amount due or owed to the external party. There is full support for these sorts of FinancialAccount transactions, doing payments both ways (withdrawals and deposits), representing the liability for positive balances in the GL, etc.
Related
I am trying to calculate stock market liquidity by using the effective spread, quoted spread and price impact. one of the variables that I need is seller and buyer initiated trades. How am I able to extract that information from Bloomberg ?
I’m having a hard time making sense of multi-currency transactions. I’m using the REST API to retrieve journal transaction details. I’m hitting the /entity/Default/18.200.001/JournalTransaction endpoint with $expand=Details and some date filters. The base currency of this Acumatica instance is USD, but some journal transactions are entered in EUR. The problem is that for these EUR transactions, I have no way of knowing these debit/credit amounts were entered in the non-default currency. I see the EUR amount, but the CurrencyID of the transactions indicates “USD”. About the only thing I notice is that the transaction is in the “US” branch, but the details are in the “EU” branch. Is there a way, via the REST API, to query journal transactions/details, and discern what currency the debit/credit amount is represented in?
Journal header contains CurrencyID field which should tell you what currency it belongs to.
I am trying to process the orders from certain Amazon store. But was faced with a problem:
I can not get total price (or total amount) for orders with 'Pending' status. This field is empty. This info can not be retrieved even via OrderItems.
Amazon API docs says:
Note: When an order is in the Pending state (the order has been placed but payment has not been authorized), the ListOrderItems operation does not return information about pricing, taxes, shipping charges, gift wrapping, or promotions for the order items in the order. After an order leaves the Pending state (this occurs when payment has been authorized) and enters the Unshipped, Partially Shipped, or Shipped state, the ListOrderItems operation returns information about pricing, taxes, shipping charges, gift wrapping, and promotions for the order items in the order.
But I really need it. In addition I saw some apps, which can 'see' OrderAmount for pending orders.
Maybe anyone have already resolved this question? Any help is highly appreciated.
Thanks.
I use the SellerSKU along with a Amazon price stored in my database to calculate the order value. It is an estimate, though, since the price may have been updated recently (and the order might not reflect the new price) and I cannot calculate the shipping price - neither the price nor the address is known for pending orders.
At least in my usage, I don't see a reason for trying to get the exact amount before the order actually leaves the Pending state. Quantities and SKUs are known, so you can reserve stock accordingly which is the only task I actually need to know pending orders for.
I am making a small personal application regarding my trade of shares of various companies.
The actions can be selling shares of a company or buying. Therefore, the details to be saved in both cases would be:
Number of Shares
Average Price
Would it be better to use separate tables for "buy" and "sell" or just use one table for "trade" and keep a field that demarcates "buy" from "sell"?
Definitely the latter case - one table, simple one field (boolean) defining whether it's selling or buying. You should define tables by entities, not by actions taken on them.
This is actually a tricky one. The table you're talking about is basically a trade table, detailing all your buys and sells.
In that sense, you would think it would make sense to have both buys and sells in a single table.
However, in many jurisdictions, there is extra information for a sell order. That piece of information is which buy order to offset it against (for capital gains or profit purposes). While this is not necessary in a strict first-bought, first-sold (FBFS) environment, that's by no means the only possibility.
For example, under Australian law, you can actually offset a sale against your most recent purchase, as long as you have the rationale written down in clear language before-hand. Even though my company follow FBFS, I am allowed to receive bonus issues or supplemental shares which I can then sell immediately. These are offset against the most recent shares bought, not ones I've held for X number of years (this is often handy to minimise taxes payable).
If you follow a strict FBFS, then you don't need that extra information and your trades are symmetrical. Even where they're not, I've implemented it in one table with the extra information, useless for buy orders of course. That seemed the easiest way to go.
You could do it as two asymmetrical tables but that makes queries a bit more problematic since you often need to pull data from both tables. My advice is to stick with a single table with the extra information if needed.
I would also never store the average price. I prefer the quantity, the price per share and the brokerage costs. Every other figure can be calculated from those three, for example:
AvgPrice = (Brokerage + SharePrice * ShareQuant) / ShareQuant
but it's sometimes impossible to work backwards from just the average price, since you don't know what the brokerage was.
And I wouldn't have a boolean for buy/sell, it's just as easy to use negative numbers for the sell orders and it makes balance-sheet-type calculations a lot easier since you just sum values irrespective of the order type instead of needing to negate some of them depending on that order type.
Update: If, as you seem to indicate, you're only going to store aggregate information for each company, I would go for the following:
Companies:
CompanyId primary key
CompanyCode indexed
CompanyName
CompanyBuyQuant
CompanyBuyAvgPrice
CompanySellQuant
CompanySellAvgPrice
then you update the individual columns depending on whether it's a buy or sell. You don't need a separate row for the buy/sell stuff. When the company is first added, both quantities and prices are set to 0.
Your entity is now the company so this makes more sense. One thing you may want to consider is to store the aggregate values of shares bought and sold rather than the average buy and sell prices. That will simplify your update calculations and you can still easily get the averages by dividing the aggregate by the quantity.
So, the following table:
Companies:
CompanyId primary key
CompanyCode indexed
CompanyName
CompanyBuyQuant
CompanyBuyValue
CompanySellQuant
CompanySellValue
When adding a company, set all quanities and values to 0,
When buying M shares at N dollars each, add M to CompanyBuyQuant and N * M to CompanyBuyValue.
When selling M shares at N dollars each, add M to CompanySellQuant and N * M to CompanySellValue.
Get average buy price as CompanyBuyValue / CompanyBuyQuant.
Get average sell price as CompanySellValue / CompanySellQuant.
I'd go with a single table.
You can use negative quantities to indicate a sell. This is a fairly standard sort of indication. Subtraction is the same as adding a negative number!
One table. Each row/item is a trade, whether it's buy or sell.
Also, the aggregate of the quantity column will give you your current position. And cash too (-1 x quantity x price**) aggregated.
Buy or sell if inferred by the sign of the quantity: no need for separate column, unless you want to make a computed column derived from quantity.
**cash: When you sell (negative quantity) you get cash back (positive cash), hence -1 multiplier in case anyone wonders.
"Trade" can be ambiguous and it's not entirely clear to me what you want to do here. Are you interested in storing only your current position in each share or also the history of transactions that show how the position developed?
If you just want to record your holding ("position" might be a better word if you can be short) then I'd simply record for each share the number held. You mention average price, but I'd be cautious about that if you expect at any time to be able to sell part of a holding. What's the average price if you buy 100 at 50, 100 at 60 and sell 50 at 70?
Unless you expect your buy and sell transactions to number in the millions, I'd be more inclined to record each individual purchase or sale as a separate row in a single table and show the totals on demand as the derived results of a simple query.
We create point of sale software for the mac, and are looking to revamp our tax engine. It's pretty simple now, with taxes consisting of a name, code and rate that can be applied to every product individually. While this is good enough for some people, we've had lots of requests to handle more advanced situations. Some examples are US City/County sales tax, Canadian compound (stacked) taxes, French ecotax and NYC luxury tax.
We've identified most of the characteristics that these taxes have and are leaning towards a sort of rule-engine based implementation. We don't have to support every case out there, but we want to be able to extend it if needed (to avoid another rewrite).
We're looking for advise from people who built something like this before, or examples of projects that try to solve the same in an elegant way.
My suggestion would be to use database tables for what they are good for (storing values) and rules for what they are good for (business logic). I would certainly not put things like tax rates or lists of jurisdictions in rules - those should be in tables. What I would use a rules engine for is defining the logic that determines which rate to apply to which transactions. So, for instance, if I buy a set of products online from a company based in State X that ships from State Y to three different locations, what tax rates apply to which parts of the transaction?
This combination of rules and database tables is very common - the rules make sure you look up the right things while the tables aid in reporting etc. For instance, the California DMV did this with vehicle registration fees - all the various fees are stored in a database while the rules that determine which fee applies to which car are managed in a rulebase.
If you try and put everything in rules you will not be able to report well and if you try and put everything in database tables you will end up with dozens of tables to manage all the exceptions and corner cases.
JT
I would recommend a set of database tables and joins.
Example:
Jurisdiction: list of states, counties, countries, cities, etc.
Product: obvious
Store: list of locations you sell from
StoreJurisdiction(StoreID, JurisdictionID): the list of Jurisdictions the store is
responsible to collect taxes for
ProductTaxCode(ProductID int, TaxCodeID int): the type of product for the purposes of taxes: basic, luxury, etc.
JurisdictionTaxCodeRate(JurisdictionID, TaxCodeID, InterestRate, RateType): for each applicable combination of Jurisdiction and Tax Code, provide the tax rate to be applied, and the type of rate (compound, simple, etc.).
To find the list of taxes to apply, all you need is an INNER JOIN of the store, its jurisdictions, the jurisdictiontaxcoderates for those Jurisdictions, and the product's tax codes.
You could define ProductTaxCode as a View so all products receive a default TaxCode unless a special one is provided. By abstracting TaxCode, you can have the same metadata about a product ("Food" for instance) apply to different regions in different ways. If a particular jurisdiction has its own definition of "food", you just add a jurisdiction-specific code and apply it to products as needed.
This may require some tweaking for Internet purchases, wholesale purchases, and other situations where the sale is somehow exempt from taxes or the customer is responsible for remitting them. It would also need tweaking for situations where the customer's location, rather than the store, decides the tax rate.
Other tweaks: here in Texas, for instance, we have a "tax-free" weekend where state and local taxes are not collected on some classes of products where the individual item's sale price is less than $100. The idea is to provide cheaper school supplies, clothing, etc. for children heading off to school for a new year. This sort of tweak could be implemented by having a date range table for each JurisdictionTaxCodeRate going off in the future as far as they can be planned.
Here is an example of a "home rule" city in the Denver, CO metropolitan area:
http://www.c3gov.com/pages/about/division_salestax.html
You, as a retailer, may also need to send the tax payments to different locations. For cities that are not "home rule" cities (which is a special term that probably only applies to Colorado, but then probably every state has some equally special term like it), you'll send all the tax payments to the state who will then deal them out to the relevant parties. Colorado has a feature where there are "special tax districts" that are permitted to collect sales taxes for certain benefits (on the example link, RTD is the public transportation district, and "Invesco Field" is the stadium where the Denver Broncos play).
To expand upon Mr Tallent's answer on this thread, you'll need to also include in the Jurisdiction table some way of representing that the taxes may go to different places.