I've been tinkering getting a fully working 'degressive' amortisation method in account_assets.
Although initially it was rather quite simple (at it is in theory), there *is* a considerable issue encountered when the frequency 'yearly' is selected instead of 'monthly'. I wonder if it is worth the bother keeping the 'yearly' frequence, at least on the basis of the current compute_depreciation implementation mechanics. 1. 'yearly' quite unconveniently hardcodes the annuity date to 31/12. This naturally doesn't match the the accounting period end date of all companies. For example, in France, many close 31/03 or 30/09 and in the states 30/06 is rather common. To be useful, there might need to be an initial annuity date (in absence of a fiscal year being defined all the way back to the activation start_date, that is for amortisations in progress in an accounting system migration) 2. The company's account period can change, for example to align to a calendar year or to the contrary. This happens also quite frequently in connection with mergers and acquisitions. 3. Using only 'monthly' avoids a lot of mucking around in calculations seeing if the period is longer or shorter than a 'year', needing to verify for each fiscal year end_date that an annuity is corrected for an activated asset. All this is simplified keeping only a 'monthly' computation. 'Yearly' effects could still be done, for example, leaving it to the 'movement', that is, either split by period or grouping all and collapsing into a single movement at the end of the period... leaving the amortisation 'future' schedule monthly. What are the experiences and opinions of users or those needing to use the module. cheers, -- Richard PALO -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tryton" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tryton/5717139B.7070907%40netbsd.org.
