Hey there, I've got QB Pro 2005

Anyhow, I'm reconciling some past months from last year (something I'll do
EVERY MONTH in 2005).

'and I'm coming across a simple problem which bothers me all the same.

For example: I didn't pay myself for July until August during which time the
check was actually cashed.
But I've entered in July as Payment for the sake of things sync-ing with
Payroll taxes and to avoid confusion in the future.

How do I handle this? Since keeping it with a postdate of July will
obviously not allow me to balance with my actual bank account.

Or am I making a big deal out of nothing?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions and enlightenment.

From:	dexter jettster
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:07:44 GMT

"WhoTurnedOffTheLights" wrote in message
news:FIVFd.840$cx2.41@trndny03...
>
> For example: I didn't pay myself for July until August during which time
> the check was actually cashed.
> But I've entered in July as Payment for the sake of things sync-ing with
> Payroll taxes and to avoid confusion in the future.
>
> How do I handle this? Since keeping it with a postdate of July will
> obviously not allow me to balance with my actual bank account.

Sure it will.
It will just be listed as an outstanding item in July (along with all the
other checks that were written, but that didn't clear the bank in July).

And then you will clear it in your reconciliation when it clears the bank in
August (along with all the other checks that clear the bank in August).

~d. jettster

From:	WhoTurnedOffTheLights
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:21:44 GMT

"dexter jettster" wrote in message
news:AwWFd.1967$2e7.140@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "WhoTurnedOffTheLights" wrote in message
> news:FIVFd.840$cx2.41@trndny03...
>>
>> For example: I didn't pay myself for July until August during which time
>> the check was actually cashed.
>> But I've entered in July as Payment for the sake of things sync-ing with
>> Payroll taxes and to avoid confusion in the future.
>>
>> How do I handle this? Since keeping it with a postdate of July will
>> obviously not allow me to balance with my actual bank account.
>
>
> Sure it will.
> It will just be listed as an outstanding item in July (along with all the
> other checks that were written, but that didn't clear the bank in July).
>
> And then you will clear it in your reconciliation when it clears the bank
> in August (along with all the other checks that clear the bank in August).
>

My big concern stemmed from being told by someone that each and every single
month should match exactly what I had in the bank for that month.

So then it's usual practice to have an outstanding item this way when doing
bookkeeping? (remember I'm accounting ignorant and presently finding my
way.)
'guess it's sort of like an invoice but in reverse.
I guess I could always annotate each such entry after the fact reminding
myself that such and such paychecks didn't clear until much later.

From:	Dexter Jettster
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:49:44 GMT

"WhoTurnedOffTheLights" wrote in message
news:sT0Gd.1165$rs2.310@trndny07...
>
> My big concern stemmed from being told by someone that each and every
> single month should match exactly what I had in the bank for that month.

Go find that person, and give him/her a good whack across the chops! Or
barring that, request that they never again instruct you or anyone else in
matters related to bookkeeping.

>
> So then it's usual practice to have an outstanding item this way when
> doing bookkeeping? (remember I'm accounting ignorant and presently finding
> my way.)

It's *so* usual that on many bank statements, the institution provides a
standard, blank, reconciliation form -- complete with an area for a whole
slew of outstanding items.

Go on, I dare you. Look on the back of your bank statement and tell me what
you see there.

~d. jettster

From:	WhoTurnedOffTheLights
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 05:02:02 GMT

"Dexter Jettster" wrote in message
news:Ih1Gd.8335$_56.5942@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Go find that person, and give him/her a good whack across the chops! Or
> barring that, request that they never again instruct you or anyone else in
> matters related to bookkeeping.

Which is why I hang out here in the first place.

> It's *so* usual that on many bank statements, the institution provides a
> standard, blank, reconciliation form -- complete with an area for a whole
> slew of outstanding items.
>
> Go on, I dare you. Look on the back of your bank statement and tell me
> what you see there.

Dang! you're right! Good thing I didn't go ahead with my plan of laminating
my bank statements for safekeeping! haha (just kidding).
Once again, Dexter to the rescue.

From:	Paul A Thomas
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:39:06 -0500

"WhoTurnedOffTheLights" wrote
> Hey there, I've got QB Pro 2005
>
> Anyhow, I'm reconciling some past months from last year (something I'll do
> EVERY MONTH in 2005).
>
> 'and I'm coming across a simple problem which bothers me all the same.
>
> For example: I didn't pay myself for July until August during which time
> the check was actually cashed.
> But I've entered in July as Payment for the sake of things sync-ing with
> Payroll taxes and to avoid confusion in the future.
>
> How do I handle this? Since keeping it with a postdate of July will
> obviously not allow me to balance with my actual bank account.
>
> Or am I making a big deal out of nothing?

For starters, your payroll and the related taxes should all tie to the
period in which the check is written (the due date of the taxes are based on
the check date). So even though you get paid in August, for the work you do
in July, it is AUGUST payroll. To try and report otherwise will make you
one month late on your taxes, or report income on the W-2 before you
received it.

Also, moving the payroll day (if you pay monthly) to the first of the month
gives you time to have the check clear, and then the taxes would be due,
generally, in the middle of the following month.

Does that help, or have I confused you even more?

--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
taxman at negia.net

From:	WhoTurnedOffTheLights
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:11:57 GMT

"Paul A Thomas" wrote in message
news:10ugd1io4arjjd8@corp.supernews.com...

>
> For starters, your payroll and the related taxes should all tie to the
> period in which the check is written (the due date of the taxes are based
> on the check date). So even though you get paid in August, for the work
> you do in July, it is AUGUST payroll. To try and report otherwise will
> make you one month late on your taxes, or report income on the W-2 before
> you received it.
>
> Also, moving the payroll day (if you pay monthly) to the first of the
> month gives you time to have the check clear, and then the taxes would be
> due, generally, in the middle of the following month.
>
> Does that help, or have I confused you even more?
>

Thank you Paul and No I'm not confused at all. All this crap is actually
making sense to me these days.

But you see, my question is really just a basic accounting question. I'm
never looking to alter the pay date and there's no reason whatsover why I
should have to change what day I pay just to satisfy my bookkeeping. I just
wanted some hints on how to better handle my monthly reconciliation so that
my month-end QB reports match what my bank statements actually state. Being
short in one month just didn't sound right to me.

Thanks though...... ;-))

From:	Dexter Jettster
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:43:54 GMT

"WhoTurnedOffTheLights" wrote in message
news:hK0Gd.1029$cx2.986@trndny03...
>
>
> But you see, my question is really just a basic accounting question. I'm
> never looking to alter the pay date and there's no reason whatsover why I
> should have to change what day I pay just to satisfy my bookkeeping. I
> just wanted some hints on how to better handle my monthly reconciliation
> so that my month-end QB reports match what my bank statements actually
> state.

But then you're not performing a bank reconciliation. You're simply trying
to make your book balance match the bank statement, which will never happen
when you have checks or deposits that don't clear the bank in the period
that you're performing the reconciliation. What would be the purpose of
"matching" the month-end QB reports to what your bank statements actually
state?

Your question is truly one of a basic accounting nature - only you didn't
realize that you asked the wrong question.

You should have asked "How does one perform a bank reconciliation
correctly?"

I'm glad you asked!

First, it is important to understand the purpose of the bank reconciliation.
The purpose is to ensure that the cash balances of your books are correctly
stated as of a certain point in time, and to determine the nature of any
differences between your books and the bank statement balance. You see,
when you write a check for $50 on July 31, it will not (in all likelihood)
clear the bank until the August period. So, when you get your July bank
statement, it obviously will not have taken into account the $50 check which
you wrote. Rather, it will indicate that on July 31, you had a cash balance
higher than what your books indicate by $50. But which is right? The bank
statement, or the books? Ahhh.....we must perform a reconciliation to
determine the true answer!

Secondly, we must properly perform the bank reconciliation. This is one of
the most straight-forward tasks that can be performed, but I'm constantly
amazed at the ways clients can screw this up. Usually, it's because they're
trying to match to the bank statement....but I digress.

Simply take the bank statement and tic off (or 'clear' the entry with your
mouse in QB) every transaction that you see on the statement. If you see a
transaction on the bank statement but not on your books, record it (assuming
you simply forgot to in the first place). When you have completed this
task, you will most likely have items left unchecked/uncleared. That is,
they have been booked, but do not show up on the bank statement (remember
that $50 check you wrote on the last day of the month....stuff like that).
This is perfectly normal and these items are known as.......wait for
it......reconciling items (or outstanding items, if you prefer).

The final step: Take the bank statement balance, subtract outstanding
checks (from your list of reconciling items), then add outstanding deposits.
And voila! You *should* see a number that looks vaguely familiar. You
*should* see a number that is equal to your cash balance per books. Get it?
Got it? Good!

Here endeth the lesson.

~d. jettster

From:	WhoTurnedOffTheLights
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:57:09 GMT

"Dexter Jettster" wrote in message
news:ec1Gd.8250$_56.1730@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
> I'm glad you asked!
>

hehe, and I'm very happy you were up to the task.

Many thanks Dexter for setting me straight. From the looks of it, I'm on my
way then (with a clearer head) after now understanding the reasoning behind
reconciliation.

Again, thanks Pal!!!

From:	Dexter Jettster
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 06:51:20 GMT

"WhoTurnedOffTheLights" wrote in message
news:Fo1Gd.2372$Vx2.2180@trndny01...

> From the looks of it, I'm on my way then (with a clearer head) after now
> understanding the reasoning behind reconciliation.
>

Indeed...

And while we're handing out compliments, group-hugging, and singing
koom-bay-ahhh...

You *are* well on your way. The very fact that you took the time to ask
with a ready-to-learn spirit signifies, to me at least, that you have the
skills necessary for success in the wonderful world of bookkeeping. My
advice would be to never hesitate to ask questions when you're not sure, or
when something doesn't sound or feel right to you.

Bravo for you! And good luck.

~d. jettster

ps. You might want to consider Mr. Thomas' advice (re: payroll taxes and
timeliness, etc.) carefully. The phrasing of your OP indicates that you may
not be handling this properly.

From:	WhoTurnedOffTheLights
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:06:31 GMT

From:	WhoTurnedOffTheLights
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:45:12 GMT

"Dexter Jettster" wrote in message
news:I33Gd.8418$_56.6815@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> ps. You might want to consider Mr. Thomas' advice (re: payroll taxes and
> timeliness, etc.) carefully. The phrasing of your OP indicates that you
> may not be handling this properly.

hmmm, thanks Dexter but which are you referring to? Paying myself on the
first of the month? or paying taxes within the same month the check is
issued?

Well let's see. I've paid for payroll taxes for every single month they were
due and contrary to my accountant's pace, I always set out to pay them ASAP
instead of waiting until the 15th of the following month.

In 2005 things will be quite different for me with better planning and such.
But since I didn't begin paying myself until July of 2004 with a huge bonus
(and I do mean HUGE) in December, I will end up (just as Paul mentioned)
paying myself after the W2 is due. Since my company is such that it doesn't
receive it's earnings (commissions, payments and what have you) till long
after the fact. As an employee I myself won't get paid until February yet of
course I had to take care of the payroll taxes first.

Being a very young S-Corporation, it would not have looked right if I didn't
pay myself a big enough wage for all my work. And well, the company did
extremely well (beyond expectations in December).

For 2004, it was all rather muddled but I've made it. Here's looking towards
2005!

Thanks bud.

From:	Dexter Jettster
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:22:52 GMT

"WhoTurnedOffTheLights" wrote in message
news:cUaGd.2691$hC2.1030@trndny04...
> "Dexter Jettster" wrote in message
> news:I33Gd.8418$_56.6815@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> ps. You might want to consider Mr. Thomas' advice (re: payroll taxes and
>> timeliness, etc.) carefully. The phrasing of your OP indicates that you
>> may not be handling this properly.
>
> hmmm, thanks Dexter but which are you referring to? Paying myself on the
> first of the month? or paying taxes within the same month the check is
> issued?

Alrighty then. Let's clarify! This whole issue of "paying taxes within the
same month the check is issued" is an important one.

It sounds as if you are a "monthly payer" of payroll taxes. This means that
any payroll taxes are due on the 15th day following the month of the
payroll. And the relevant date here is *the date on the distributed check.*
So let's say that you sit down on July 30 to prepare payroll, and you date
the payroll checks "July 31." Payroll taxes for these distributions are due
on August 15. If you hold onto a check for yourself until a few days, or
even a few weeks later (and then "issue" the check), payroll taxes are still
due on August 15.

If this is was already crystal clear to you (as it appears it may have
been), then I apologize. But it's important to realize that the day the
check is "issued" is irrelevant in most cases (usu. this means the day the
check was given/sent to the payee). What matters is the date on the check.

>
> Well let's see. I've paid for payroll taxes for every single month they
> were due and contrary to my accountant's pace, I always set out to pay
> them ASAP instead of waiting until the 15th of the following month.

What motivates you to pay taxes early? Some noble notion of philanthopy
towards the taxing entity? I encourage my clients to hold onto their
hard-earned money until the last possible moment. You see, each additional
day that the funds exist in your account they are available to work for you,
generating some amount of interest. When you voluntarily give up this
opportunity, opting to pass along this benefit to the taxing entity....well,
all I can say is you are a better person than I.

What you may be perceiving as your accountant's lackluster "pace" is nothing
short of a sound financial and business practice. Hang onto your funds and
let them work for you!

>
> As an employee I myself won't get paid until February yet of course I had
> to take care of the payroll taxes first.

Come again? It sounds like you're paying payroll taxes before the wages.
Please clarify.

>
> And well, the company did extremely well (beyond expectations in
> December).

Perhaps.

But if you're having to hang onto your actual payroll check until after
verifying that the payroll taxes cleared the bank.......well, let's just say
that's not indicative of any successful business that I've ever heard of.

~d. jettster

From:	WhoTurnedOffTheLights
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:29:19 GMT

"Dexter Jettster" wrote in message
news:0LnGd.13362$Z%.5557@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> What motivates you to pay taxes early? Some noble notion of philanthopy
> towards the taxing entity? I encourage my clients to hold onto their
> hard-earned money until the last possible moment. You see, each
> additional day that the funds exist in your account they are available to
> work for you, generating some amount of interest. When you voluntarily
> give up this opportunity, opting to pass along this benefit to the taxing
> entity....well, all I can say is you are a better person than I.
>

The less worrying I need to do at the last minute and the clearer my head
is, the better I'll be able to run my business. I'm quite familiar with the
idea of holding onto funds till the last minute. It simply doesn't sit well
with me being further constrained by having to meet deadlines. You'd have to
be in my shoes to understand how holding onto these funds does no sort of
good.

>> As an employee I myself won't get paid until February yet of course I had
>> to take care of the payroll taxes first.
>
>
> Come again? It sounds like you're paying payroll taxes before the wages.
> Please clarify.
>
> But if you're having to hang onto your actual payroll check until after
> verifying that the payroll taxes cleared the bank.......well, let's just
> say that's not indicative of any successful business that I've ever heard
> of.
>
hehehe, errr actually it is. It's simply the mess of having to deal with
one's first year and making 20-30% of the entire year's income in a month
like December without knowing how much exactly that number was going to turn
out to be until the very last minute and NOT GETTING those funds until much
much later. It's also the problem of folks coming at me from every direction
reminding me that I SHOULD pay myself enough so's to avoid any red flags.
Believe me Dexter, there's a method to this madness. The Judge of which no
one can possibly be without seeing the entire situation as a whole.
Something with which I'd end up extending this Post to many many more
paragraphs and (days?).

Thanks again pal.

From:	dexter jettster
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:54:43 GMT

"WhoTurnedOffTheLights" wrote in message
news:zDwGd.4459$Vx2.1514@trndny01...
> Thanks again pal.

My pleasure. Anytime.

~d. jettster

From:	WhoTurnedOffTheLights
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:59:26 GMT

"dexter jettster" wrote in message
news:n%wGd.2509$2e7.2140@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> "WhoTurnedOffTheLights" wrote in message
> news:zDwGd.4459$Vx2.1514@trndny01...
>> Thanks again pal.
>
> My pleasure. Anytime.
>
> ~d. jettster

Bravo to you for being so very helpful in the first place!

;-))

From:	Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	15 Jan 2005 09:35:34 EST

Hi Dexter

I have a question for you.

It's a practice that stems from my grandfathers day, all the days of
my fathers life, and how I have been doing it myself all of my days.

It regarding payroll checks. Although we only use ONE business
checking account, we have different checkbooks for specific purposes.
One of these is strictly for payroll!

We have the MASTER Checkbook which is always in perfect balance.
Come time to issue paychecks, we write a single check from the Master
Checkbook made out to PAYROLL (Void is written in the signature line
and Transferred to Payroll is written on the Memo Line), this check
then finds its way into our reconciliation folder.
All of the paychecks are then issued from the Payroll checkbook, which
is reconciled separately.
By doing it this way, we have a single gross amount entry in the
master checkbook which has made quarterly and year end reports a whole
lot easier to deal with.

Ironically, when you use outside payroll services, you end up with
only one check to payroll also!

My question is more one out of curiosity as to whether other companies
handled their payroll in a like manner to what we have done for
decades?

TTUL
Gary

From:	Dexter Jettster
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:56:01 GMT

"Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr." wrote in message
news:41e9278f.163139203@news.galilei.com...
> Hi Dexter

Hello Gary

> I have a question for you.

And I have an answer for you.

> It's a practice that stems from my grandfathers day, all the days of
> my fathers life, and how I have been doing it myself all of my days.

Ah, yes...the old "that's the way it's always been done" scenario. I
tremble at the thought.....but proceed, please.

> It regarding payroll checks.

A populat topic, it seems.

> Although we only use ONE business
> checking account, we have different checkbooks for specific purposes.
> One of these is strictly for payroll!

There is a very anal part of me that doesn't like this. But, as we'll
probably eventually see......it doesn't really matter what I like.

>
> We have the MASTER Checkbook which is always in perfect balance.

An excellent start. I like seeing perfectly reconciled cash balances.

> Come time to issue paychecks, we write a single check from the Master
> Checkbook made out to PAYROLL (Void is written in the signature line
> and Transferred to Payroll is written on the Memo Line), this check
> then finds its way into our reconciliation folder.
> All of the paychecks are then issued from the Payroll checkbook, which
> is reconciled separately.

There is nothing wrong with your system.
I don't like it, however, for reasons that are probably (mostly)
theoretical. It strikes me personally as additional work and record-keeping
that has the *potential* to cause reconciliation issues. However, you seem
to have overcome these pitfalls.

> By doing it this way, we have a single gross amount entry in the
> master checkbook which has made quarterly and year end reports a whole
> lot easier to deal with.

For my money, this is truly the most important thing you've said. It makes
your quarterly and year end reports a whole lot easier to deal with. Bravo.
After all, what is the point of all the bookkeeping if not to assist you in
making real management decisions?

When it's all said and done, if you can achieve a process whereby you can
actually gleam relevant data from your bookkeeping then you are that much
closer to achieving success in your business.

It sounds like you have just such a process, and I salute you for it!

>
> My question is more one out of curiosity as to whether other companies
> handled their payroll in a like manner to what we have done for
> decades?

I'm sure there are. None of our clients do. But this is largely because of
preference. I believe that there is nothing "structurally" wrong with your
methods. Ultimately, your processes should be ones (1) with which you are
comfortable, (2) you understand, and (3) which deliver sound data useful for
decision-making.

Anytime our clients achieve the above, we encourage them to continue.

In summary: *I* don't like your system, but I like it for *you.*

~d. jettster

From:	Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	16 Jan 2005 14:37:50 EST

Hi Dexter

Thanks for your response and incite!

We use totally different types of checks for making out payroll, not
much unlike the kind payroll services use.
It would look quite ODD to pay Vendors using Paystub type checks.
Thus the reason for different physical checkbooks.

At one time we used different checking accounts for different
purposes, but for us, this was more of a headache than using a single
checking account number with different checkbooks.
Thankfully, Reconciliation has not been a problem doing it this way.

You had mentioned that you don't like it done this way!

Is there a better way that I am not aware of yet?

Thanks

TTUL
Gary

From:	WhoTurnedOffTheLights
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling - clarification
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:20:20 GMT

BTW Paul, I see now how you might've misinterpreted what I mean't (or
perhaps I could've done better in my explanation).

The only reason I'd ever pay myself in August for July is because I spent
July's funds paying for the payroll taxes for that month.

Since as we all know, the IRS doesn't give a damn if your house burnt down,
your mother died or your cat ran away.

They's wants theirs monies whens they's wants theirs monies.

From:	Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	15 Jan 2005 09:47:05 EST

Hi Lights

Your checkbook WILL (or should) BALANCE with Quickbooks, no problem.

Cleared checks you indicate with the checkmark in the little box.
Uncleared checks won't have a checkmark in them yet.

You go through your current bank statement checking off those checks
that have CLEARED the bank in Quickbooks.
If your bank charges you a monthly service charge, you enter that into
Quickbooks also.
If you go to BANKING tab and click on Reconciliation, it will SHOW YOU
the Real bank balance (top right corner) and the CLEARED bank balance
(lower right corner, with the DIFFERENCE between the two under that).

The Dollar amount in the CLEARED box should be identical to the
BALANCE shown on your Bank Statement. And the TRUE BALANCE (upper
right hand corner) should agree with your Physical Checkbook Balance.

Unless of course you use your business checkbook for personal use also
and those checks are not entered into your program.

TTUL
Gary

From:	WhoTurnedOffTheLights
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:51:29 GMT

"Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr." wrote in message
news:41e92ae3.163990640@news.galilei.com...
> Hi Lights
>
> Your checkbook WILL (or should) BALANCE with Quickbooks, no problem.
>
> Cleared checks you indicate with the checkmark in the little box.
> Uncleared checks won't have a checkmark in them yet.
>

Gary, Yah, this would help greatly, but where are those little boxes you're
talking about?

I've got QB Pro 2005 mind you. I looked through the help files and there's
no mention of them.....and there's no sight of them on actual checks within
the screen......least not that I can see.

From:	Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	16 Jan 2005 14:45:14 EST

Hi Lights

On the top of the screen is a TAB named BANKING, if you click on this
tab it will open a drop down list, within this list is a TAB named
RECONCILIATION which opens whichever bank account you select in the
BANK window.
After opening this window and selecting the bank account, the upper
right window on this form shows the true checkbook balance and the
lower right form window shows the cleared balance which should agree
with your checkbook.

I'm using Quickbooks PRO 2000 series also, and have not upgraded from
2003 upgrade issue to the 2005 upgrade issue, but they usually don't
change much between upgrades.
The Reconciliation Form has been in all versions of Quickbooks, QB
Deluxe and QB Pro 95/98 series and 2000 series.

TTUL
Gary

From:	WhoTurnedOffTheLights
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:26:10 GMT

"Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr." wrote in message
news:41eac2fd.268464968@news.galilei.com...
> Hi Lights
>

haha, hey Gary.

Yah, yah, I of course know where the reconciliation is since that's the
reasoning behind my original post. Funny thing is, (and maybe not so funny
BUT RATHER SAD).....I didn't even think to click on each item. I've been
doing all this visually without even clicking on the Reconcile Now Button.

Hmmmm, life seems to get easier with every passing hour!

;-))))))

Thanks bud.

From:	Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	17 Jan 2005 10:16:50 EST

Hi Lights

Trying to figure out QB is like playing the game of RISK!

It takes two college professors and a lunatic to figure out the RULES.
But any 7 year old can play the game if somebody just shows them how!

QB also has quirks about it (actually bad programming defaults) that
can destroy a whole years worth of data by hitting one wrong button in
a pop up window, with no way to undo the OOPS you just made.
The DEFAULT response is YES and it should be NO....
YES means apply this change globally to all RECORDS.
NO means apply this change ONLY to this RECORD.
One of these pop ups are related to inventory items on the sales
receipt form. When you change the price of an inventory item to the
current price without creating a new entry for each price change, it
pops up with YES as the default to apply this price change GLOBALLY to
all past closed transactions. What a ROYAL MESS it causes.

TTUL
Gary

From:	WhoTurnedOffTheLights
Subject:	Re: QB Question -- Reconciling
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:49:29 GMT

"Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr." wrote in message
news:41ebd54a.338685718@news.galilei.com...
> Hi Lights
>
> Trying to figure out QB is like playing the game of RISK!
>
> It takes two college professors and a lunatic to figure out the RULES.
> But any 7 year old can play the game if somebody just shows them how!
>

haha