Question:

While I can see JetBlue adding Toronto and Montreal to JFK or LGA, I’m finding it hard to envision a financially-strapped US Big Six or low fare carrier doing much, never mind take over (even temporarily) any domestic Canadian routes like Toronto-Winnipeg, Winnipeg-Calgary, etc.

Well Northwest might not fly Winnipeg-Calgary, but maybe Mesaba would fly it as "Northwest Airlink".  (Sorry if that reference is out of date, I haven’t flown NW in a long time).  It’s Mesaba that flies YOW-DTW, for instance. So if it wouldn’t be AA it might be American Eagle.  If not DL then ASA (? – the one that flies YOW-ALT). And maybe a new or existing Canadian carrier might fly the big-six colours, e.g. Bearskin adding a partnership with NW to fly YOW-YYZ. andrew — for PGP public key, send email with "send public key" as subject

Response:

I found the list of subsidiaries included in the bankrupcy protection: 3838722 Canada Inc. Air Canada Capital Ltd. Jazz Air Inc. Manoir Int

Question:

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My company makes stuff that is purchased by other companies.  Some distribute the stuff, others put my stuff into their stuff and sell it that way.  On occassion, we will provide incentives for the sales people at one of our accounts.  It’s usually an incentive for the top sales reps, for example.  Sometimes we let the company administer the incentive to their sales folks, where we issue a check to the company for the total incentive cost, and the individual sales reps receive the incentive in their paychecks.  Other times, I pay it directly to the individual sales reps. I recently administered an incentive, where we gave bank certificates directly to the sales reps at one of our customers.  My accounting manager said that this is against "accounting rules," as I am not able to provide a cash incentive directly to the employee of one of our accounts. I understand the IRS guidelines/statutes relating to cash and cash equivalent awards, and the need to provide a 1099 if the total awards for the year exceed "X" dollars for an individual.  What I don’t understand is this "accounting rule" my accounting manager is referring to.  They claim: 1.  I can’t give a cash incentive to someone that is not directly employed by my company.

Sure you can.  Car companies do it all the time. 2.  A sales person at one of our accounts is not providing my company with a "service," so I can’t pay them an individual incentive.

They sell your studd (albeit through their employer) 3.  I must pay the company, and let them administer the incentive to their sales reps.

That’s probably the preferable method, but I’ve seen it done the other way many more times. 4.  "If we get audited, I have to show that a service was performed".

The sales records? I’m no CPA, but this just doesn’t sound logical to me.  It sounds like a personal guideline, rather than a generally accepted accounting principal or rule….

As long as you have the proper documentation, and you follow your established guidelines (no having your entire golf partners "win" a free golf trip), then things should be OK. If you are talking about huge amounts, you may need to run things by your company attorney to be sure you are following all the legal rules (if any apply). — Paul A. Thomas, CPA Athens, Georgia taxman at negia.net

Response:

Greetings, My company makes stuff that is purchased by other companies.  Some distribute the stuff, others put my stuff into their stuff and sell it that way.  On occassion, we will provide incentives for the sales people at one of our accounts.  It’s usually an incentive for the top sales reps, for example.  Sometimes we let the company administer the incentive to their sales folks, where we issue a check to the company for the total incentive cost, and the individual sales reps receive the incentive in their paychecks.  Other times, I pay it directly to the individual sales reps.   I recently administered an incentive, where we gave bank certificates directly to the sales reps at one of our customers.  My accounting manager said that this is against "accounting rules," as I am not able to provide a cash incentive directly to the employee of one of our accounts. I understand the IRS guidelines/statutes relating to cash and cash equivalent awards, and the need to provide a 1099 if the total awards for the year exceed "X" dollars for an individual.  What I don’t understand is this "accounting rule" my accounting manager is referring to.  They claim: 1.  I can’t give a cash incentive to someone that is not directly employed by my company. 2.  A sales person at one of our accounts is not providing my company with a "service," so I can’t pay them an individual incentive. 3.  I must pay the company, and let them administer the incentive to their sales reps. 4.  "If we get audited, I have to show that a service was performed". I’m no CPA, but this just doesn’t sound logical to me.  It sounds like a personal guideline, rather than a generally accepted accounting principal or rule….

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greetings, My company makes stuff that is purchased by other companies.  Some distribute the stuff, others put my stuff into their stuff and sell it that way.  On occassion, we will provide incentives for the sales people at one of our accounts.  It’s usually an incentive for the top sales reps, for example.  Sometimes we let the company administer the incentive to their sales folks, where we issue a check to the company for the total incentive cost, and the individual sales reps receive the incentive in their paychecks.  Other times, I pay it directly to the individual sales reps. I recently administered an incentive, where we gave bank certificates directly to the sales reps at one of our customers.  My accounting manager said that this is against "accounting rules," as I am not able to provide a cash incentive directly to the employee of one of our accounts. I understand the IRS guidelines/statutes relating to cash and cash equivalent awards, and the need to provide a 1099 if the total awards for the year exceed "X" dollars for an individual.  What I don’t understand is this "accounting rule" my accounting manager is referring to.  They claim: 1.  I can’t give a cash incentive to someone that is not directly employed by my company. 2.  A sales person at one of our accounts is not providing my company with a "service," so I can’t pay them an individual incentive. 3.  I must pay the company, and let them administer the incentive to their sales reps. 4.  "If we get audited, I have to show that a service was performed". I’m no CPA, but this just doesn’t sound logical to me.  It sounds like a personal guideline, rather than a generally accepted accounting principal or rule….

you could ask to see a copy of the applicable accounting rule but I don’t think you will get one.  Payments to a distributor’s salesperson or agent is actually common in some industries and this is expensed as marketing commissions or fees.  It is true if the payments total more than ($600?) a 1099 has to be issued.  There are also guidelines for good internal accounting controls such as the plan should be written and approved by the board, payments approved, etc.

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -There are so many accounting packages out there that you will effectively be reinventing the wheel. The one exception is that you will tailor your package for your particular client. Do you realize the work involved with this? Is the client willing to wait while you get this off the ground and assist with working the bugs out? Is the client willing to pay for a brand new software package? Between the ability of some packages to be customized either by the end user or the vendor *and* the ability of companies to be flexible and adjust their own requirements… there *is* a pre-existing accounting package that will fit your client’s needs. I’ve been through this so many times at the corporate level from the IT side in organizations 10,000 employees. Management at the companies always start off by saying their requirements are *not* flexible… but then when the realities of the whole thing start to sink in those requirements suddenly become flexible enough that along with some customizations of an existing package we find a fit.

I wholly agree with you, and this is why I’m asking. No, I was not aware of how many packages are out there that can be customized. My impression is that there are big ‘uns in the 100k + range – and part of the reason I’m doing this research is to figure out which would be more expensive; my time to "reinvent the wheel" or the purchase of a third-party package + my time to "customize the wheel". I’m no pollyanna – I realize this could be an enormous effort. But from my perspective so far, it seems that extending my QB "Shadow" would end up being less costly than investing in some package. Which brings me back to asking about finding strategies for constructing an accounting package.. In light of your comments, maybe I should ask for tips in shopping for customizable packages.. Maybe this is too vague of a request – I understand that. But the great beauty of Usenet is that there are experts everywhere, if you can just find them and ask the right questions. =) Thanks BLink Brian Link in St. Paul, Minnesota

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There are so many accounting packages out there that you will effectively be reinventing the wheel. The one exception is that you will tailor your package for your particular client. Do you realize the work involved with this? Is the client willing to wait while you get this off the ground and assist with working the bugs out? Is the client willing to pay for a brand new software package? Between the ability of some packages to be customized either by the end user or the vendor *and* the ability of companies to be flexible and adjust their own requirements… there *is* a pre-existing accounting package that will fit your client’s needs. I’ve been through this so many times at the corporate level from the IT side in organizations 10,000 employees. Management at the companies always start off by saying their requirements are *not* flexible… but then when the realities of the whole thing start to sink in those requirements suddenly become flexible enough that along with some customizations of an existing package we find a fit. I wholly agree with you, and this is why I’m asking. No, I was not aware of how many packages are out there that can be customized. My impression is that there are big ‘uns in the 100k + range – and part of the reason I’m doing this research is to figure out which would be more expensive; my time to "reinvent the wheel" or the purchase of a third-party package + my time to "customize the wheel". I’m no pollyanna – I realize this could be an enormous effort. But from my perspective so far, it seems that extending my QB "Shadow" would end up being less costly than investing in some package. Which brings me back to asking about finding strategies for constructing an accounting package.. In light of your comments, maybe I should ask for tips in shopping for customizable packages.. Maybe this is too vague of a request – I understand that. But the great beauty of Usenet is that there are experts everywhere, if you can just find them and ask the right questions. =)

there are literally hundeds of accounting software programs and the customizable features are periodically reviewed in magazines such as Journal of Accountancy , CFO magazine, etc. You would be well advised to talk with other companies in your field and find out what they are using – you would be surprised how much you can learn by joining trade associations or just visiting a CFO/controller in another company similar to yours.    Trying to design your own accounting package is like re-inventing the wheel !!

Response:

Maybe you’re being too discouraging. Depending on which theory you favour for the origin of the human race, it probably took from 20,000 to 200,000 years to develop the wheel. The first versions of most accounting programs probably took only about 2-5 years with teams of 5-10 programmers.  The currently-popular programs probably took, on average, another 3-5 years with teams of about 5-20 programmers to become reasonably reliable and reasonably full-featured and user-friendly.  About 10 years ago I counted more than 300 English-language North-America-suitable programs within a fairly narrow price range, and estimate that at least another 300 had died and gone wherever dead programs go.  On the basis of some quite arbitrary but reasonable assumptions, I suggest that an investment of about $1 million and 5 years has almost a 50% chance of resulting in an accounting program that works.  Seems like it must be a lot easier than re-inventing the wheel. Given that no-one has yet succeeded in creating an accounting program that is generally acknowledged as "pretty good" (or better) by more than a handful of satisfied users, I think we should ENCOURAGE Brian to give it a try. A different question on the same topic – Why do so few people do similar arithmetic?  Why do so many programmers with no accounting experience and accountants with no programming experience think it must be "easy" to build a better accounting program? Go for it, Brian!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There are so many accounting packages out there that you will effectively be reinventing the wheel. The one exception is that you will tailor your package for your particular client. Do you realize the work involved with this? Is the client willing to wait while you get this off the ground and assist with working the bugs out? Is the client willing to pay for a brand new software package? Between the ability of some packages to be customized either by the end user or the vendor *and* the ability of companies to be flexible and adjust their own requirements… there *is* a pre-existing accounting package that will fit your client’s needs. I’ve been through this so many times at the corporate level from the IT side in organizations 10,000 employees. Management at the companies always start off by saying their requirements are *not* flexible… but then when the realities of the whole thing start to sink in those requirements suddenly become flexible enough that along with some customizations of an existing package we find a fit. I wholly agree with you, and this is why I’m asking. No, I was not aware of how many packages are out there that can be customized. My impression is that there are big ‘uns in the 100k + range – and part of the reason I’m doing this research is to figure out which would be more expensive; my time to "reinvent the wheel" or the purchase of a third-party package + my time to "customize the wheel". I’m no pollyanna – I realize this could be an enormous effort. But from my perspective so far, it seems that extending my QB "Shadow" would end up being less costly than investing in some package. Which brings me back to asking about finding strategies for constructing an accounting package.. In light of your comments, maybe I should ask for tips in shopping for customizable packages.. Maybe this is too vague of a request – I understand that. But the great beauty of Usenet is that there are experts everywhere, if you can just find them and ask the right questions. =) there are literally hundeds of accounting software programs and the customizable features are periodically reviewed in magazines such as Journal of Accountancy , CFO magazine, etc. You would be well advised to tal k with other companies in your field and find out what they are using – you would be surprised how much you can learn by joining trade associations or just visiting a CFO/controller in another company similar to yours. Trying to design your own accounting package is like re-inventing the wheel !!

Response:

Given that no-one has yet succeeded in creating an accounting program that is generally acknowledged as "pretty good" (or better) by more than a handful of satisfied users, I think we should ENCOURAGE Brian to give it a try.

LMAO True, so true. — Paul A. Thomas, CPA, PC Athens, Georgia

Response:

If this outfit is so small or dislikes spending money so much that they chose a two or three hundred dollar accounting package like quick books, I have only one question for you. How much do you think they would be willing to pay you to develop a custom package for them and go through all the debugging which could realistically take years?

Response:

If this outfit is so small or dislikes spending money so much that they chose a two or three hundred dollar accounting package like quick books, I have only one question for you. How much do you think they would be willing to pay you to develop a custom package for them and go through all the debugging which could realistically take years?

Actually, try about 6k. It’s no SAP or anything, but for a small firm that’s a few pounds o bacon. I mean, they’re not General Motors or anything. BLink Brian Link in St. Paul, Minnesota

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If this outfit is so small or dislikes spending money so much that they chose a two or three hundred dollar accounting package like quick books, I have only one question for you. How much do you think they would be willing to pay you to develop a custom package for them and go through all the debugging which could realistically take years? Actually, try about 6k. It’s no SAP or anything, but for a small firm that’s a few pounds o bacon. I mean, they’re not General Motors or anything. BLink Brian Link in St. Paul, Minnesota

Brian, I am doing a similar thing. ?SQL + J2EE front end. I am not an accountant, and realise that I really can’t be bothered with fiddling about with the ledgers, tax and all the rest of it. I am using a half-way house solution, where all of the "core" operational data such as the stock control system and sales/purchase order processing is part of the (custom) ?SQL DB. Anything more on the accounting side than that (such as entries to ledgers…) is done using proprietary accounting software. That way, the accounts dept have their own package, and everyone else can use a decent and versatile system. I think that making the split is better than either of the two alternatives: 1. use proprietary software all round. (Expensive + hard to customize) 2. Code the lot from scratch. (You need to know accounts inside out and have a LOT of time on your hands) Regards John

Response:

There are so many accounting packages out there that you will effectively be reinventing the wheel. The one exception is that you will tailor your package for your particular client. Do you realize the work involved with this? Is the client willing to wait while you get this off the ground and assist with working the bugs out? Is the client willing to pay for a brand new software package? Between the ability of some packages to be customized either by the end user or the vendor *and* the ability of companies to be flexible and adjust their own requirements… there *is* a pre-existing accounting package that will fit your client’s needs. I’ve been through this so many times at the corporate level from the IT side in organizations 10,000 employees. Management at the companies always start off by saying their requirements are *not* flexible… but then when the realities of the whole thing start to sink in those requirements suddenly become flexible enough that along with some customizations of an existing package we find a fit. — "Its the bugs that keep it running."                                       -Joe Canuck

Response:

After programming to Quickbooks and finding it wanting, I’m half-considering writing my own accounting package. With my current project, I have to shadow almost everything QB does except payroll, since the client’s reporting needs are somewhat more sophisticated than QB allows for, and the non-robustness of a single (corruptible, deletable, fubar-able) company file has my teeth chattering. So I thought I’d barge into this group and see if I could find any pointers on starting a project like this. I don’t have an accounting background, but the concepts behind double-entry accounting are fairly familiar to me now. The industry is healthcare, and so there are various idiosyncracies having to do with multiple payors for a single charge. The claims management piece is done and sits on top of the accounting system. What resources would you suggest for getting a good grounding in accounting system design? I’d like to find some sort of comprehensive set of standard requirements or best practices that I can rely on to make sure I’m being thorough. Are there any free packages that may provide a solid starting point? Books? I’d need General Ledger, Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, Payroll and Collections. This is a service industry, so I don’t need inventory management. Frankly, just seeing a good database schema would go a long ways… Thanks in advance for any info you can pass along. BLink Brian Link in St. Paul, Minnesota

Response:

Question:

Thanks, Jim, for letting us all know about this. Catherine – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – IMA Ethics Hotline Now Open to All Financial Professionals This seems like a very good idea. Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA

Response:

IMA Ethics Hotline Now Open to All Financial Professionals By: SmartPros Editorial Staff Oct. 10, 2002 — In response to the need for businesses to maintain the highest ethical standards, President Margaret Butler of the Institute of Management Accountants yesterday announced that financial professionals can now get free, confidential guidance on ethical issues through the IMA Ethics Hotline. Since Enron and other corporate accounting scandals, ethics programs and hotlines are fast becoming an unoffical requirement for businesses. Confidential hotlines, in particular, are gaining popularity to protect an employee from being labeled a "whistleblower." "Recent events in the business world demonstrate the need for more ethical guidance for financial professionals," said President Butler. "When financial professionals call the toll-free hotline, their inquiries will be forwarded to an experienced ethics counselor, who provides confidential guidance. This hotline is particularly well-suited for small businesses and solo practitioners who need guidance on ethical issues." Financial professionals can call the hotline toll-free at 1-800-638-4427 not record phone numbers or e-mail addresses. Those who contact the hotline can be provided with a numerical code for identification, to maintain confidentiality. <snip http://accounting.smartpros.com/x35571.xml This seems like a very good idea. Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA

Response:

http://accounting.smartpros.com/x35571.xml This seems like a very good idea.

I have always thought the IMA’s ethics hotline was a fantastic resource.  I am glad they are making it available for general use. — Todd Stephens

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Paypal’s attorney’s recently sent a Cease and Desist letter to the owners of paypalsucks.com: [snip] Regardless of your purported mission, your use of our client’s PAYPAL mark in connection with the operation of websites and in domain names constitutes trademark infringement. Quite simply, use of the PAYPAL mark in a commercial manner is not protected free speech. It is quite evident from your websites that you are profiting off of the PAYPAL mark by selling banner advertisements, offering competing financial services, and using your site to attract PayPal’s customers for your own commercial gain. For such infringement, you can be held liable for monetary damages (tripled), an injunction and our client’s attorneys’ fees. Oops.  They fell into the Napster Trap: makin a profit using someone else’s unlicensed intellectual property…  Not too smart. – Dan.

I was *completely* correct about this:   these are PayPal competitors, trying (unsuccessfully) to demolish the competition through very suspect means. Kris

Response:

You can always go to "www.sucks.com"

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just in case anyone is interested.  Paypal’s attorney’s recently sent a Cease and Desist letter to the owners of paypalsucks.com: Now maybe we won’t have people regularly coming in here and posting that URL as follow-up to 150 straight posts.  ;-) Bill It’s mainly paypalwarning.com that gets endlessly touted, best I disremember…. —         Mac There wall of shame horror stories has not been updated in well over 2 months. I predict they will soon be gone.

Too bad. They probably saved a lot of people from getting screwed.

Response:

Paypal’s attorney’s recently sent a Cease and Desist letter to the owners of paypalsucks.com: [snip] Regardless of your purported mission, your use of our client’s PAYPAL mark in connection with the operation of websites and in domain names constitutes trademark infringement. Quite simply, use of the PAYPAL mark in a commercial manner is not protected free speech. It is quite evident from your websites that you are profiting off of the PAYPAL mark by selling banner advertisements, offering competing financial services, and using your site to attract PayPal’s customers for your own commercial gain. For such infringement, you can be held liable for monetary damages (tripled), an injunction and our client’s attorneys’ fees.

Oops.  They fell into the Napster Trap: makin a profit using someone else’s unlicensed intellectual property…  Not too smart. – Dan. — – South Jersey, USA, Earth  <http://cronus.spaceports.com/~darmok

Response:

There wall of shame horror stories has not been updated in well over 2 months. I predict they will soon be gone. Actually the date on their server is off.  I posted something yesterday and it wound up with a date stamp of 2/06/02. That date’s correct — if you’re a European… -Bob

Or just about anywhere else in the world — This seems to have reduced some guy’s spam.

Response:

Just in case anyone is interested.  Paypal’s attorney’s recently sent a Cease and Desist letter to the owners of paypalsucks.com: Well, at least paypalsucks.com has one page of interest — the page where they posted all PayPal’s contact info! http://www.paypalsucks.com/faqs.shtml I followed this case with interest. It concerned a web master who thought he was doing the company a favor by creating a page all about their brand new shopping mall.  His domain was similar to theirs and they sued. He countered with this site.  Eventually a settlement was reached.  Its a good read, though, and may shed some light on where paypalsucks.com may be headed: http://taubmansucks.com/ CG

Response:

Just in case anyone is interested.  Paypal’s attorney’s recently sent a Cease and Desist letter to the owners of paypalsucks.com: Now maybe we won’t have people regularly coming in here and posting that URL as follow-up to 150 straight posts.  ;-) Bill

It’s mainly paypalwarning.com that gets endlessly touted, best I disremember…. —         Mac

Response:

So if they didn’t accept banner advertising on the sites, the lawyers really couldn’t do anything about it.

Untrue.  They can: 1.  Get the domain name pulled.  This unfortunately, is probably the easiest thing they might try if their lawyers really knew how the ICANN idiocy worked. 2.  Drag the suckers into court over the trademark infringement. Ohio Art has pretty much kept anybody from using -a-sketch in a domain name anywhere.

Response:

Just in case anyone is interested.  Paypal’s attorney’s recently sent a

Cease and Desist letter to the owners of paypalsucks.com: Now maybe we won’t have people regularly coming in here and posting that URL as follow-up to 150 straight posts.  ;-) Bill It’s mainly paypalwarning.com that gets endlessly touted, best I disremember…. —         Mac

There wall of shame horror stories has not been updated in well over 2 months. I predict they will soon be gone.

Response:

There wall of shame horror stories has not been updated in well over 2 months. I predict they will soon be gone.

Actually the date on their server is off.  I posted something yesterday and it wound up with a date stamp of 2/06/02. -b

Response:

There wall of shame horror stories has not been updated in well over 2 months. I predict they will soon be gone. Actually the date on their server is off.  I posted something yesterday and it wound up with a date stamp of 2/06/02.

That date’s correct — if you’re a European… -Bob

Response:

when ever i get any email from paypal or ebay that does not look right i forward it to their abuse to let them investigate most times it has been fraud.

Response:

I don’t think so.  You -can- sue for anything, but a non-profit site that tries to  persuade people not to deal with you, and works, is not something you’d win on.  Otherwise, the tobacco companies would be in hog heaven, and Consumer Reports would be out of business. Bonita – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well if they could prove they lost just ONE customer, I think they could go for damages So if they didn’t accept banner advertising on the sites, the lawyers really couldn’t do anything about it.

Response:

Well, they are using the actual PayPal logo on the site — that’s probably what pushed it over the edge.

Response:

So if they didn’t accept banner advertising on the sites, the lawyers really couldn’t do anything about it.

Response:

Well if they could prove they lost just ONE customer, I think they could go for damages – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So if they didn’t accept banner advertising on the sites, the lawyers really couldn’t do anything about it.

Response:

Just in case anyone is interested.  Paypal’s attorney’s recently sent a Cease and Desist letter to the owners of paypalsucks.com: We are intellectual property counsel to PayPal, Inc. of Palo Alto, California. As you are well aware, PayPal provides financial services under the PAYPAL name and service mark and owns and operates the website at <www.paypal.com. Our client’s name, service mark and website are among its most valuable assets. We have recently been made aware of your operation of two websites, <www.paypalsucks.com and <www.nopaypal.com, that infringe our client’s service mark rights in the PAYPAL mark. Printouts of your websites are attached to the confirmation copy of this letter. We further understand that these websites provide a forum to criticize PayPal, Inc. Our client respects your right to do so–provided your websites do not contain any false, disparaging or defamatory statements. We must remind you that any such statements contained on your websites are actionable and can subject you to liability. Regardless of your purported mission, your use of our client’s PAYPAL mark in connection with the operation of websites and in domain names constitutes trademark infringement. Quite simply, use of the PAYPAL mark in a commercial manner is not protected free speech. It is quite evident from your websites that you are profiting off of the PAYPAL mark by selling banner advertisements, offering competing financial services, and using your site to attract PayPal’s customers for your own commercial gain. For such infringement, you can be held liable for monetary damages (tripled), an injunction and our client’s attorneys’ fees. On behalf of our client, we must insist that you immediately cease all further use of the PAYPAL mark and transfer the domain names to our client. We further demand that you provide an accounting of the profits that you have received in connection with your operation of these websites. Your swift and full cooperation would enable us to resolve this matter quickly and on an amicable basis. Please contact me as soon as possible, and no later than June 7, 2002, so that we may facilitate a prompt resolution of this matter. Very truly yours, Anthony J. Malutta TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3834 Tel: 415.576.0200 Fax: 415.576.0300 www.townsend.com

Response:

Question:

where can i hear it if i dont watch tv

Just ask the nearest 8th or 9th grade girl to hum it for you. 8^) -Miles, no TV here, folks

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – where can i hear it if i dont watch tv While the program content is probably of no interest (no accounting for taste around these parts, tho!), I would like to let y’all know that ALL guitar parts for the music from "Dawson’s Creek" are recorded with a Cruise MQ4 combo. Bob Mothersbaugh of Mutato Musica (and Devo fame) is responsible for writing and playing on the soundtracks. Also, rumor has it that Joe Walsh thoroughly dug working with an MQ4 combo in preparation for upcoming Eagles performances.  We’ll have to wait for the official word, but hopefully you’ll be hearing Cruise on their gigs. Dunno if they are planning to go back in the studio or not.  Anyone heard any rumors to that effect?

Where are you located? I hate spam, so be sure to remove a ’syn’ before replying by email Tonefully yours, Lee Sebel / Cruise West Marketing Representing Cruise Audio Systems www.cruiseaudio.com

Response:

located in detoit michigan also how much does this amp go for? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – where can i hear it if i dont watch tv While the program content is probably of no interest (no accounting for taste around these parts, tho!), I would like to let y’all know that ALL guitar parts for the music from "Dawson’s Creek" are recorded with a Cruise MQ4 combo. Bob Mothersbaugh of Mutato Musica (and Devo fame) is responsible for writing and playing on the soundtracks. Also, rumor has it that Joe Walsh thoroughly dug working with an MQ4 combo in preparation for upcoming Eagles performances.  We’ll have to wait for the official word, but hopefully you’ll be hearing Cruise on their gigs. Dunno if they are planning to go back in the studio or not.  Anyone heard any rumors to that effect? Where are you located? I hate spam, so be sure to remove a ’syn’ before replying by email Tonefully yours, Lee Sebel / Cruise West Marketing Representing Cruise Audio Systems www.cruiseaudio.com

Response:

I’d rather hear David Gilmour’s "Cruise." In article While the program content is probably of no interest (no accounting for taste around these parts, tho!), I would like to let y’all know that ALL guitar parts for the music from "Dawson’s Creek" are recorded with a Cruise MQ4 combo.  

<SNIP

Response:

located in detoit michigan also how much does this amp go for?

Our sales and marketing are based on Birmingham MI, so I will try to find a local dealer for you.  MSRP on the 2×12 combo is $2999, your mileage may vary. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – where can i hear it if i dont watch tv While the program content is probably of no interest (no accounting for taste around these parts, tho!), I would like to let y’all know that ALL guitar parts for the music from "Dawson’s Creek" are recorded with a Cruise MQ4 combo. Bob Mothersbaugh of Mutato Musica (and Devo fame) is responsible for writing and playing on the soundtracks. Also, rumor has it that Joe Walsh thoroughly dug working with an MQ4 combo in preparation for upcoming Eagles performances.  We’ll have to wait for the official word, but hopefully you’ll be hearing Cruise on their gigs. Dunno if they are planning to go back in the studio or not. Anyone heard any rumors to that effect? Where are you located?

I hate spam, so remove a "syn" before replying via email. Tonefully yours, Lee Sebel / Cruise West Marketing Representing Cruise Audio Systems www.cruiseaudio.com

Response:

While the program content is probably of no interest (no accounting for taste around these parts, tho!), I would like to let y’all know that ALL guitar parts for the music from "Dawson’s Creek" are recorded with a Cruise MQ4 combo.   Bob Mothersbaugh of Mutato Musica (and Devo fame) is responsible for writing and playing on the soundtracks. Also, rumor has it that Joe Walsh thoroughly dug working with an MQ4 combo in preparation for upcoming Eagles performances.  We’ll have to wait for the official word, but hopefully you’ll be hearing Cruise on their gigs.   Dunno if they are planning to go back in the studio or not.  Anyone heard any rumors to that effect? I hate spam, so be sure to remove a ’syn’ before replying by email Tonefully yours, Lee Sebel / Cruise West Marketing Representing Cruise Audio Systems www.cruiseaudio.com

Response:

where can i hear it if i dont watch tv – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – While the program content is probably of no interest (no accounting for taste around these parts, tho!), I would like to let y’all know that ALL guitar parts for the music from "Dawson’s Creek" are recorded with a Cruise MQ4 combo. Bob Mothersbaugh of Mutato Musica (and Devo fame) is responsible for writing and playing on the soundtracks. Also, rumor has it that Joe Walsh thoroughly dug working with an MQ4 combo in preparation for upcoming Eagles performances.  We’ll have to wait for the official word, but hopefully you’ll be hearing Cruise on their gigs. Dunno if they are planning to go back in the studio or not.  Anyone heard any rumors to that effect? I hate spam, so be sure to remove a ’syn’ before replying by email Tonefully yours, Lee Sebel / Cruise West Marketing Representing Cruise Audio Systems www.cruiseaudio.com

Response:

Question:

Hi   Which is the most popular accounting software package in the UK and which would be the best to study so as to ensure a job ???     Cheers            Paul

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi   Which is the most popular accounting software package in the UK and which would be the best to study so as to ensure a job ???     Cheers            Paul

Response:

Question:

I don’t see Intuit as tomorrow’s software company at all. I see their products rather as the climax generation of 16-bit, standalone, non-interoperable software.

If Intuit continues with the direction of their current products, you are probably right. They had better reevaluate their long-term strategy, and many of the points made in this thread would send them down (IMO) the right road. If they don’t open up their data format for the near future, and create a high-end QuickBooksSQL that can use standard DBs like Oracle, MS-SQL, etc., they’re going to be leap-frogged. And I think you know who’ll be the one… … I often wonder why you don’t see Microsoft selling G/L software.  They’re smart enough to know the market needs, and deserves, more functionality.  Perhaps Microsoft is still trying to figure out how to do accounting software right.

I bet that Microsoft will come out with something in the next couple of years that does just that. An SQL DB pre-configured with the necessary fields and tables, an accounting front-end that delivers accountant features, a bookkeeping front-end for the company, and — since the DB is an open format — the ability for developers to write custom data-collection front-ends to dump all the daily sales transactions into it. Getting sick of arbitrary differences on these basic things, after 50 years of computing the differences are just proprietary B.S.

Boy, you got that right! And importing/exporting data needs to become a thing of the past. Just log on to the database, wherever it resides, with the appropriate client front-end, and do what you need. If I never saw another disk with an "accountant’s copy," or mapped a real DB to an *.IIF format file, I’d be a bit happier. — Jeff Hamblin www.qtools.com

Response:

*You have to market yourself and convince somebody that       you are generating value.  

And, to do that, you actually have to believe you are doing that.  Many times accountants simply don’t even think about generating value for their clients, which means they really can’t come up with a reason why a client should use them. This is why I must part ways with the QB and PT ledgers.  They’re not nearly flexible enough.  They need at least 2 or 3 user definable attributes on each row of each transaction. What they’ve done instead is cheat.  They have glued together a payroll system that’s marked by Emp, and a Sales journal that;s marked by Customer, and a Purchase journal that’s marked by Vendor.  

I agree that additional flexibility would be nice, but the hitch is that you have to deal with a couple of facts. First, the "great unwashed" who have no formal training are enticed very quickly by the "simple" front end.  User definable attributes are great, but they generally require a thinking process in seeing how to use them and what to do with them that’s difficult for the novice to handle.  I would agree that if someone can bridge that issue, they are going to have a big winner–but I suspect it will take quite awhile before someone hits on how to do it. Second, many of those with the training seem to resist change at all costs.  They just aren’t likely to "lead the charge" for any radical new systems–as many of those that have developed such systems have found. There are a number of forward thinking G/Ls out there, but they all lack the highly polished QB interface for the nonprofessional.  And they’re not "standard", they lack market shares.  Clients don’t trust them or the practitioner. They’re scared to death of being tied to a sole-source CPA.   And they’re right.  

Of course, though, that creates a classic chicken/egg situation–no one wants to use a product that has little market share, but no product can get market share until people start to use it.   I don’t see Intuit as tomorrow’s software company at all.   I see their products rather as the climax generation of 16-bit, standalone, non-interoperable software.  

Maybe–but they’ve been in that position for quite a while and nobody has knocked them off yet.  I suspect that as long as they continue to make progress and avoid major gaffes, they are going to control the low end accounting market. In my view, these mass-market ledgers are really inhibiting progress.  

Actually, part of the problem will be the users.  You have to *educate* them about why they need your software.  Most of them understand a checkbook and maybe can deal with invoicing.  However, advanced customizable reporting systems are beyond their capabilities and they don’t understand *why* they’d want it. They want QuickBooks now because it does what they’ve always done. One important issue to remember, though, is that many successful businesses are managed using data *other* than that which appears in the accounting system.  The importance of determining just what is the "key information" is crucial in running a business, and you may find that much of that information is not to be found inside the traditional ledgers. I often wonder why you don’t see Microsoft selling G/L software.  They’re smart enough to know the market needs, and deserves, more functionality.  Perhaps Microsoft is still trying to figure out how to do accounting software right.

Microsoft has tried a couple of times, with the short lived Microsoft Profit (it was sold back to Great Plains as I recall) and, on the very low end, with the less than overwhelmingly successful Microsoft Money. Ed Zollars, CPA (AZ) http://www.getnet.com/~hmtzcpas

Response:

Hi Myron, thanks for your post. QuickBooks users are a major source of revenue for our firm. We provide setup, fixup, telephone support, and completion

You see?  Quickbooks quite often results in such a hairball of mixed up information that it consumes a lot of professional time to sort out.  Hence the larger fees. Far better if you could give them just a few screens, that look a lot like their business and are as convenient to use as QB. And fine, for users who are ready, give them more.  Give them the bank reconcilation.  Give them the General Journal. But don’t give them a ledger  with the powers to revise transactions that have already been reviewed, change net income of prior periods, enter misdated transactions, without knowing who or why it was done.   And then charge them $70/hour fixing it up. Give them a ledger that remembers what’s been reviewed and has built-in powers to show you what’s been done since last time. And user ID’s to see, who posted what. Give them something where a month STAYS closed when you close it.  Something that you can get in front of you without driving over there and zipping onto a floppy.  Something they can keep using while you’re reviewing it.

Response:

As I write this I am asking myself, why am I encouraging accountants of wake up to the opportunity technology offers. I am better off if we are the only firm who is trying to take advantage of this opportunity.

Don’t worry–enough will ignore the opportunity to leave more than enough room for those that can go after the opportunities rather than only seeing the problems.  As I noted in another post, accountants generally seem to be programmed to see any change as a terrible thing, rather than noticing that changes always breed opportunities for those that can grab hold of them. Ed Zollars, CPA (AZ) http://www.getnet.com/~hmtzcpas

Response:

The change in the accounting business over the next few years will be radical. [...] 1) As an accountant, there is little work to do that can’t be done better, faster, more accurately, and for less money by a computer.  This includes almost everything the CPA does.  The biggest problem I have in my office is convincing other CPAs of this fact.  Their involvement in their work is nearly superflous. 2) Intuit’s obvious problems aside, they are quickly becoming to the software industry what Microsoft has become to the OS & Office Suite business.  And they have a lot of cash to buy up the competition with.  In addition, you’ll see QB move toward replacing some of the high end products…..

Right on!   Are you ready for this:  the completely virtual CPA firm, whose members have never seen each other in person? Where it’s at is on the server anyways.  Unless you have approx $250,000 plus $100,000/year for maintenance, the CPA firm isn’t going to have their own secure host with big bandwidth, onsite engineer for 24×7 uptime anyway. I envision a future where big, fully featured transaction servers will be hosted by well-capitalized web site operators and CPA’s will finally be relieved of what we’ve been doing so poorly these last 20 years, implementing software. Instead, most rank-and-file CPAs  will be back where we belong, training and educating and enabling managers and administrators throughout this great and diverse economy. The Big 6 having abused and mistreated their IT staffs for a generation will have a tough time implementing any of this. They won’t be competitive with pure engineering-oriented web site operators, on price/performance.  They’ll just be customers of the infrastructre industry, much like local CPAs. What city are you in, DRay?

Response:

Today small firms have access to a lot more options to leverage their advantages while helping to make up for their "aloneness".  Usenet is, in fact, one such tool that can be used by the smaller firm to gain access to the expertise of others that used to be one of the major unique advantages of practicing in a large firm.  I can today call on resources from across the country today that dwarf those available to many in "larger" firms.

We can see this because in the professions, we have inherited a pearl of great value:  the notion of operating independently. Because of pure good fortune, automation helps one industry more than another.  Because we’re culturally ready to operate as fully autonomous practitioners, the internet and the web are very useful to us.  For those other guys, in manufacturing or education lets say, the web is fairly useless.   They don’t need to take credit cards online.  They have no use for an LLC or for accounting databases capable of allocating revenue or expenses according to their time and billings. To graduate from the medieval employee-employer model of human behavior requires a level of maturity most workers haven’t achieved.   You have to be firing on all 8 cylinders. *You have to consistently generate value every day. *You have to market yourself and convince somebody that        you are generating value.   *You have to do it economically, without wasting or consuming       a lot of resources.     *You have to keep track of all this stuff in your ledger, *You have to settle your payables and actually collect your       receivables…. and so forth. As ranks of workers in various industries mature into real professionals, they’ll appreciate multidimensional accounting systems capable of reflecting or modelling their economic reality, and doing it efficiently, freeing them to do what they’re good at.   When you can mark every dollar and cent as to the Cust, Emp, Dept, and Vendor, Job.   Not just the Sales Journal dollars, or the Purchases dollars. This is why I must part ways with the QB and PT ledgers.  They’re not nearly flexible enough.  They need at least 2 or 3 user definable attributes on each row of each transaction. What they’ve done instead is cheat.  They have glued together a payroll system that’s marked by Emp, and a Sales journal that;s marked by Customer, and a Purchase journal that’s marked by Vendor.   There are a number of forward thinking G/Ls out there, but they all lack the highly polished QB interface for the nonprofessional.  And they’re not "standard", they lack market shares.  Clients don’t trust them or the practitioner. They’re scared to death of being tied to a sole-source CPA.   And they’re right.   I don’t see Intuit as tomorrow’s software company at all.   I see their products rather as the climax generation of 16-bit, standalone, non-interoperable software.   It does not amaze me, or impress me, how well these ledgers work since they leave the challenge of data sharing completely unaddressed, and also avoid most of the challenge of modelling vertical industries.  They’re just money-tracking software.   They are a prick tease. In my view, these mass-market ledgers are really inhibiting progress.   … I often wonder why you don’t see Microsoft selling G/L software.  They’re smart enough to know the market needs, and deserves, more functionality.  Perhaps Microsoft is still trying to figure out how to do accounting software right. Maybe they’ll realize the mathematical symmetry behind all of accounting, and deliver a least-common denominator software design that is capable of growing and adapting to the market.  I wish MS would package something with Small Bus. Server, that would at least give us standard field names and data types for the Customer table, and the Transaction table.   Getting sick of arbitrary differences on these basic things, after 50 years of computing the differences are just proprietary B.S. * Todd F. Boyle CPA              www.isomedia.com/homes/tboyle * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033       (425) 827-3107 * Fax (425) 576-0616

Response:

1) As an accountant, there is little work to do that can’t be done better, faster, more accurately, and for less money by a computer.  This includes almost everything the CPA does.  The biggest problem I have in my office is convincing other CPAs of this fact.  Their involvement in their work is nearly superflous.

I agree there’s a problem getting CPAs to see technology as being useful.  However, I don’t think technology removes the CPA from mix so much as it changes what he/she does for the client.  We still serve many of the same clients we did 15 years ago, and we still end up billing them amounts that are about the same (adjusted for inflation) as we did before. However, what we are doing is quite a bit different and how we go about it also has changed. What technology has done is allowed us to move the "drudgery" to the clients, while reducing the time that even the client spends on the work (everyone wins).  Fifteen years ago we did a lot of write up work, starting from check stubs, client paper one write systems, etc.  Today we generally start with those same clients from at least a set of books with all cash activity recorded, and we are merely adjusting and then helping the client use those figures and, more importantly, *INTERPRET* them. CPAs that have failed to make use of the technology tools available to them have seen their revenues drop and find themselves under incredible pressure to accept lower realized billing rates.  However, those that have made use of technology have seen just the opposite. Last week they called back, amazed at some of the stuff they could do with it.  QB is not perfect for a lot of reasons, but Intuit has the ability to fix it.

To quote from a speaker at the AICPA’s Practitioners Conference held back in May in Las Vegas–"if you are still fighting QuickBooks, the battle is already over and you’ve lost."  That said, though, there are still lots of uses for CPAs in that situation.  Your own example of being able to see that the client *could* make use of the product and it was the most cost effective means to solve their problem was worth something to them.  More importantly, it helped establish your credibility with the client (note I didn’t say your firms–I said yours <grin). 3) After end users can do their own bookkeeping and transfer their data automatically to their entity returns, 90% of what they use accountants for is gone.  

You know, that has been technically possible for years, but clients generally *DON’T* want to do that and, more importantly, they find they really can’t.  I can still spot problems on returns that the client would never see (but the IRS would <grin).  More importantly, though, I try to assure that clients see me not as the person that prepares their 1120, 1120S, 1040, etc, but rather as someone that helps outline their tax and business strategy.   In the tax arena, our value comes *before* year end, not when preparing the year end tax return.  As a practical matter, I wouldn’t mind losing that <grin but I don’t see it happening any time soon.  A similar situation arises from financial statements–we can talk about what information can be gathered from the statements and how to get the business going the direction the owner wants it to go in. One real problem I see, though, is that CPAs tend to believe a client won’t pay for that type of work, but is, for some totally unexplained reason, perfectly happy to pay for 1040’s and compiled/reviewed financial statements that are simply dumped on their doorstep.  I happen to believe it’s just the opposite–they hate paying for 1040’s and financial statements (usually some other entity, like the bank or the IRS,  is forcing them to have those done), but are very interested in someone helping them make or save money. The rest is computer work.  While audits will continue, mostly larger firms will be doing them I’d think (audit work comprises only about 50K of our annual fees, and I’m not so sure it is even worth it given the peer review and all that crap we have to go through).

Larger firms have seen compliance work go flat for years, so they aren’t going to be rushing into this void <grin. Seriously, audits have never been a major source of revenue to our firm, even back 15 years ago.  They are much less so today, but that’s mostly by design–we’ve not been searching out audit work. In short, I think the traditional role of the CPA is near death.  All we need is some really good tax reform giving us a NST in lieu of an income tax, and the CPA business is gone.

I don’t know–I do pretty well billing for sales tax exams <grin and likely will do a lot better when the rates are set at the levels necessary for a national sales tax to replace the current income tax.  The transition rules will also give us years of work, so that anyone over the age of 30 likely wouldn’t have a problem <grin. The CPA firm has been changing over the past 20 years and will continue to do so.  There is this perspective that accountants tend to have that all change is bad–that’s not true, and certainly not true if you have an ability to adapt.  This adaptability is what helps the smaller firm (especially the sole propreitor) vs. the larger competitor. Largeness helps when you get to a standardized process that can be done repetitively, but technological change is making that standardization virtually impossible–by the time a standard system is in place, it’s outdated <grin. Today small firms have access to a lot more options to leverage their advantages while helping to make up for their "aloneness".  Usenet is, in fact, one such tool that can be used by the smaller firm to gain access to the expertise of others that used to be one of the major unique advantages of practicing in a large firm.  I can today call on resources from across the country today that dwarf those available to many in "larger" firms. And I mentioned above about your credibility vs. the firm’s. The fact is that most clients of any financial professional tend to see themselves not as being served by KPMG Peat Marwick, Merrill Lynch, American Express, Bank of America, etc., but rather being served by John and trusting his judgement.  When John goes from large entity A to large entity B, a good portion of the clients move with him (thus the need for noncompete agreements and clauses <grin). If you serve small clients, I happen to believe your credibility is enhanced by actually being an owner of a small business or working inside one rather than simply having "studied" them.  I can talk with a client about other, nonaccounting issues we both face running a business, while those in larger entities just turn those problems over to the "proper department". Anyway, that’s my perspective of change in the accounting business….

You now have my take as well <grin.  I think we actually agree that CPAs that try and dig in their heels and want to practice in exactly the same manner for many years are going to be in trouble.  But there is a real opportunity for those that see it. Ed Zollars, CPA (AZ) http://www.getnet.com/~hmtzcpas

Response:

I agree with the other post to this subject that technology is dramatically changing the way accountant deliver their services. But I view this change as an opportunity, not as a threat. From what I have seen it looks to me like a large percent of accountants are spending most of their time worrying about the negative effects of technology and little of no time working on taking advantage of the opportunity that it offers. As an example QuickBooks users are a major source of revenue for our firm. We provide setup, fixup, telephone support, and completion of the functions that the client is not interested in doing. We have lost the clerical data import activity, but the additional revenue from the computer consulting is significally  more and our billing realization rates are much higher. A significant portion of our new business is coming from clients whose current accountant will not provide this type of support. As I write this I am asking myself, why am I encouraging accountants of wake up to the opportunity technology offers. I am better off if we are the only firm who is trying to take advantage of this opportunity. Myron Joy CPA       Joy & Associates P.C.       Phoenix Az Accountants and Information Technology Consultants Developers of ClientLink E-WriteUp Software

Response:

DSL impact on accounting practices ADSL connections are becoming available in wide areas around Seattle now, both from US West and GTE. It is apparent that this is happening in wide areas of the US, and Canada and Europe as well. In Seattle, I now pay $20 to my ISP plus $85 to GTE for a 64K ISDN connection to the internet. Total $105/month. The price for DSL, including a permanent connection to the internet (and permanent IP Address!)  will be $40/month + $12 monthly rent for the terminal adapter, plus $25 from my ISP, total $77 per month for a 256K connection. Obviously many small businesses will install DSL and will be immediately possible for them to log into a powerful featured accounting system like Great Plains, just with off-the-shelf networking.  Astonishing. Does Great Plains or other high-end software allow you to establish departments or subsidiary companies for your clients? This is too big to ignore, this kind of development is going to rip the hell out of our long-established paradigms.   CPAs need to re-examine the facts of life and reorient the way we do business.   Software vendors need to realize that the old licensing deals are leaving them TOO EXPENSIVE.   The existing client-server vendors are vulnerable to newer, smaller vendors based on MS Small Business Server, for example.   Solomon, Great Plains, SOTA, etc are all going to be very quickly left behind just as IBM was left behind for their pricing errors, as soon as a reasonably functional competitor emerges with lower pricing. DSL will be used for long distance.  When you have a permanent IP address you can be reached instantly by MS Net Meeting from anyplace in the world, for free. Including video, remote control, whiteboard or any other shared applications.   Wake up and smmellll the coffee, boys.  DSL has arrived. * Todd F. Boyle CPA              www.isomedia.com/homes/tboyle * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033       (425) 827-3107 * Fax (425) 576-0616

Response:

This is too big to ignore, this kind of development is going to rip the hell out of our long-established paradigms.   CPAs need to re-examine the facts of life and reorient the way we do business. Wake up and smmellll the coffee, boys.  DSL has arrived.

Todd, The change in the accounting business over the next few years will be radical. Accountants graduating without some real computer skills may begin to find themselves unemployable. 1) As an accountant, there is little work to do that can’t be done better, faster, more accurately, and for less money by a computer.  This includes almost everything the CPA does.  The biggest problem I have in my office is convincing other CPAs of this fact.  Their involvement in their work is nearly superflous. 2) Intuit’s obvious problems aside, they are quickly becoming to the software industry what Microsoft has become to the OS & Office Suite business.  And they have a lot of cash to buy up the competition with.  In addition, you’ll see QB move toward replacing some of the high end products, IF Intuit gets is support act together.  A couple of months ago I had a client ridicule me about my work with QB — (they felt they needed a high end system, I had told them they were much too small for it; they referred to QB as a "toy" system).  Last week they called back, amazed at some of the stuff they could do with it.  QB is not perfect for a lot of reasons, but Intuit has the ability to fix it. 3) After end users can do their own bookkeeping and transfer their data automatically to their entity returns, 90% of what they use accountants for is gone.  The rest is computer work.  While audits will continue, mostly larger firms will be doing them I’d think (audit work comprises only about 50K of our annual fees, and I’m not so sure it is even worth it given the peer review and all that crap we have to go through). In short, I think the traditional role of the CPA is near death.  All we need is some really good tax reform giving us a NST in lieu of an income tax, and the CPA business is gone. Anyway, that’s my perspective of change in the accounting business…. David

Response:

Question:

While Delta (and presumably others) makes a dedicated morticing drill press, what do you folks think about using Forstner Bits for making mortices using a regular drill press?  Seems to me that the only minor aggravation would be having to round off the tenon ends.  What other drawbacks are there to this approach for morticing? Please post your replies. TIA, Aslam Hassan

Response:

Works fine.  I’ve even used a drill bit.  In either case, you’ve got to square up the sides. Gary – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – While Delta (and presumably others) makes a dedicated morticing drill press, what do you folks think about using Forstner Bits for making mortices using a regular drill press?  Seems to me that the only minor aggravation would be having to round off the tenon ends.  What other drawbacks are there to this approach for morticing? Please post your replies. TIA, Aslam Hassan

Response:

While Delta (and presumably others) makes a dedicated morticing drill press, what do you folks think about using Forstner Bits for making mortices using a regular drill press?  Seems to me that the only minor aggravation would be having to round off the tenon ends.  What other drawbacks are there to this approach for morticing? Please post your replies. TIA, Aslam Hassan

Aslam, You can usually aquire a mortising set for most drill presses.  I have used forstner bits and brad point bits for mortising. I prefer to square off the ends of the mortise rather than the tenons as I have the chisel in my hands to clean up the scalloped edge of the mortise anyway.  Both methods work fine.  I actually prefer the oval ends for a through mortise and I think they are stronger in a fox joint. Tom

Response:

While Delta (and presumably others) makes a dedicated morticing drill press, what do you folks think about using Forstner Bits for making mortices using a regular drill press?  Seems to me that the only minor aggravation would be having to round off the tenon ends.  What other drawbacks are there to this approach for morticing? Please post your replies. TIA, Aslam Hassan

Hey Aslam! If you’ve got a lotta time you can do it. A forstner bit will make you a nice clean, flat bottomed series of holes. *Very* precise holes. It’s just gonna take ya forever and a day. Especially if you’re using hardwood. If you’ve just gotta couple mortises to make, not a problem. But if you’re gonna tackle something like a Morris chair, which has a bazillion of ‘em, you want to use a brad point, bullet point, or another type that is designed for fast chip removal. Another thought. Good forstners are expensive and can be really expensive to get sharpened, if you can find someone to do the job in the first place. Regardless of which bit style you choose, you are still going to have to remove the waste from the sides of your mortises with a chisel. BTW, Delta makes a mortising attachment for a DP for about $50 (I think) that will bore ’square’ holes. Good luck and cheers, Bob

Response:

While Delta (and presumably others) makes a dedicated morticing drill press, what do you folks think about using Forstner Bits for making mortices using a regular drill press?  Seems to me that the only minor aggravation would be having to round off the tenon ends.  What other drawbacks are there to this approach for morticing? Please post your replies. TIA, Aslam Hassan

I’ve got a set of morticing chisels for my drill press which I use when I’m doing lots of mortices that won’t show.  For my through mortices I use my forstner bits and hand chisel to get them just right (just use my hand chisels to smooth out the sides and square up the ends of the mortice).  I think they’re a lot faster to set up and give at least as good a result as the morticing chisels.  If you’re going to do a lot that can be a little sloppy then taking the time to set up the morticing chisels is probably worth it.  Not sure how it compares to a dedicated morticing machine though. Joe P. Joseph B. Paperman Assistant Professor of Accounting School of Business Administration University of Washington Box 353200 Seattle, WA  98195-3200

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hey Aslam! If you’ve got a lotta time you can do it. A forstner bit will make you a nice clean, flat bottomed series of holes. *Very* precise holes. It’s just gonna take ya forever and a day. Especially if you’re using hardwood. If you’ve just gotta couple mortises to make, not a problem. But if you’re gonna tackle something like a Morris chair, which has a bazillion of ‘em, you want to use a brad point, bullet point, or another type that is designed for fast chip removal. Another thought. Good forstners are expensive and can be really expensive to get sharpened, if you can find someone to do the job in the first place. Regardless of which bit style you choose, you are still going to have to remove the waste from the sides of your mortises with a chisel. BTW, Delta makes a mortising attachment for a DP for about $50 (I think) that will bore ’square’ holes. Good luck and cheers, Bob

Good point on brad points being faster, and forstners not being cheap. On a mortise a clean bottom isnt neccessary, its just end grain to face grain, no strength in the glue joint there. The good mating surfaces need to be the sides. steve k — stev_ix_netcom_com is a fake. Sorry, Im tired of all the crap I get in the mail.    

Response:

Hi, My thought is that if the bit is long enough, go for it. I use brad-points, because their length is better suited to the size of mortice I cut. Forstners are notoriously short, relatively. Casey – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – While Delta (and presumably others) makes a dedicated morticing drill press, what do you folks think about using Forstner Bits for making mortices using a regular drill press?  Seems to me that the only minor aggravation would be having to round off the tenon ends.  What other drawbacks are there to this approach for morticing? Please post your replies. TIA, Aslam Hassan

Response:

The shorter Forstners will flex less, meaning the hole stays on track well.  So long as you can drill straight for the first couple of inches, you’ll have enough wood surrounding the chisel to guide it accurately the rest of the way. Question for Aslam: Why round off the tenons?  Just scribe the motises around the Forstner holes, and chisel them square.  Use any handy bench chisel, or a square "corner chisel" if you’re into nifty hand tools. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, My thought is that if the bit is long enough, go for it. I use brad-points, because their length is better suited to the size of mortice I cut. Forstners are notoriously short, relatively. Casey While Delta (and presumably others) makes a dedicated morticing drill press, what do you folks think about using Forstner Bits for making mortices using a regular drill press?  Seems to me that the only minor aggravation would be having to round off the tenon ends.  What other drawbacks are there to this approach for morticing? Please post your replies. TIA, Aslam Hassan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey Aslam! If you’ve got a lotta time you can do it. A forstner bit will make you a nice clean, flat bottomed series of holes. *Very* precise holes. It’s just gonna take ya forever and a day. Especially if you’re using hardwood. If you’ve just gotta couple mortises to make, not a problem. But if you’re gonna tackle something like a Morris chair, which has a bazillion of ‘em, you want to use a brad point, bullet point, or another type that is designed for fast chip removal. Another thought. Good forstners are expensive and can be really expensive to get sharpened, if you can find someone to do the job in the first place. Regardless of which bit style you choose, you are still going to have to remove the waste from the sides of your mortises with a chisel. BTW, Delta makes a mortising attachment for a DP for about $50 (I think) that will bore ’square’ holes. Good luck and cheers, Bob Good point on brad points being faster, and forstners not being cheap. On a mortise a clean bottom isnt neccessary, its just end grain to face grain, no strength in the glue joint there. The good mating surfaces need to be the sides. steve k —

Further reason not to worry about the cleanness of the mortise floor for a blind M&T is, you actually want the tenon to end maybe 1/16" to 1/8" shy of mortise depth.  If you’re gluing the joint, this leaves plenty of space for the extra glue so it won’t jam during assembly; liquids act like solids under compression.  If you don’t include the empty space, the glue could actually shatter the mortised post as you make the last turn of the bar clamp handle.   Tip on resharpening Forstners, especially larger ones… if the bit resists plunging, if it burns, possibly the leading edge of the rim is lagging behind.  Cure is to modify the rim into a sawtoothed edge with a small triangular saw sharpening file.  Do not, absolutely do NOT, try to deburr the outside surface.  No matter how careful you are, you’ll take away the relief taper, and the bit will bind.  Just bore a few holes, and the job will be done.

Response:

While Delta (and presumably others) makes a dedicated morticing drill press, what do you folks think about using Forstner Bits for making mortices using a regular drill press?  Seems to me that the only minor aggravation would be having to round off the tenon ends.  What other drawbacks are there to this approach for morticing? Please post your replies. TIA, Aslam Hassan

Aslam, Absolutely, the Forstner bit does just fine. Always remember to do the opposing ends first then the middle of the mortise. If you don’t, the bit can deflect and won’t cut straight down. If you have a plunge router, think about getting an up-spiral bit and setting up a jig to do floating tenons. This way you cut mortises in both pieces and connect them with the "floating" tenon. It’s very strong and makes for quick work. You can make up the floating tenon in one long piece ahead of time, and cut them to size when you need it. If you’re not familiar with this technique, check into it at the library or ask around. Al

Response:

Wow!  What a helpful group of people.  Many thanks for all your input. As you may have surmised, I am a newbie.  My first project was to make a changing table for my STB new arrival and I thought I would try to replicate the one I have, but use end dowels in butt-end joints instead of mortice and tenon (which I prefer, but don’t have the experise yet to do).  Well, drilling precise holes on the end of the rails was a BIG problem!  The fit is not half bad, but is definitely not what I would consider GOOD joinery.  So, for my next project, I want to do it the right way…use mortice and tenon without having to layout some serious $$$ for a morticing press.  The floating tenon idea sounds good. However, I don’t have a plunge router (I am getting the PC 90690 from Coastal Tool) and I wonder if it would be more time consuming than drilling since one shouldn’t go deeper than an 1/8" cut in a single pass with the router.  Or am I mistaken?  Besides, isn’t is diffcult to use a router to drill mortices on the end grain? BTW, in answer to the question why I was considering rounding over the tenons rather than squaring the mortice corners, I just thought it would easier to do the former than the latter. Once again, Thanks for ALL your responses. *MUCH* appreciated. Aslam Hassan

Response:

Wow!  What a helpful group of people.  Many thanks for all your input.

Pretty coool group huh? [snipped] The floating tenon idea sounds good. However, I don’t have a plunge router (I am getting the PC 90690 from Coastal Tool) and I wonder if it would be more time consuming than drilling since one shouldn’t go deeper than an 1/8" cut in a single pass with the router.  Or am I mistaken?  Besides, isn’t is diffcult to use a router to drill mortices on the end grain?

Actually, routing the ends of boards is easy with the right jig. I drill and chisel most mortises, and use a routah to cut mortises and/or tenons on board ends. Routing the grain in that direction is almost effortless, the wood just peels off. Basically the jig is just a rt angle fixture that provides a flat surface for the router to ride on at 90 degrees to the end of a board. You should use a plunging router for this operation tho. A cheaper alternative that will provide good results is to drill and chop like you do on face grain. Use a self centering dowel jig to get accurate holes into your board ends. Once again, Thanks for ALL your responses. *MUCH* appreciated. Aslam Hassan

steve kolacki — stev_ix_netcom_com is a fake. Sorry, Im tired of all the crap I get in the mail.    

Response:

I think it should work, I haven’t tried it yet but I will soon.

Response:

Aslam, Hello again… …nothing wrong with using brad points or Forstner bits for morticing. That is also a good way to prepare the mortice before routing, so you’re not straining your bits.  Also, you can round the ends of the tenons or, square the ends of the mortices… Good Luck — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – While Delta (and presumably others) makes a dedicated morticing drill press, what do you folks think about using Forstner Bits for making mortices using a regular drill press?  Seems to me that the only minor aggravation would be having to round off the tenon ends.  What other drawbacks are there to this approach for morticing? Please post your replies. TIA, Aslam Hassan

Response:

Aslam, You asked about the floating tenon technique. You can get away with cutting deeper with the up-spiral bit than with regular 2 fluted bits and end grain is not really a problem. As for the deflection with Forstner bits, actually the piece you’re mortising tends to "deflect" more than the bit, making even a clamped down piece hard to control. That’s why it’s best to do the ends of the mortise first, then just plow out the middle. Squaring up the mortise is easier than rounding the tenon, however rather than honing the chisel right then, I’ll sometimes do it that way. Whatever gets the job done. Al

Response:

Question:

Since when did inventory appear in the P&L? Perhaps you refer to the Cost of goods sold account? but how can that be equal to the B/S inventory? Therefore you must mean a write-up situation  where you have Opening Inventory Plus Purchases Less Closing Inventory (this appearing on both P&L and B/S?) = Cost of goods sold Most accounting packages handle inventory dymanically, debiting inventory at the time of purchase and crediting it at time of sale (and simultaneously debiting cost of goods), therefore the COGS goes to the P&L and Inventory to the balance sheet. HS – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BZZZZZZZT! Either way is fine. If you debit Purchases, you have to close it out at the end of the year anyway. The end result is the same. Debiting Inventory is easier though. It’s not.  There are two trial balance inventory accounts – P&L inventory and BS inventory.  They should always be the same.  At the end of the year you merely journal in whatever is required to get them to equal physical stock, as follows: DR/CR  P&L inventory       X   CR/DR  BS inventory        X If you are suggesting that we journal amounts into either one of these accounts without doing the same to the other then you’re going to get into a pickle.  How will you journal in your closing stock at the end of the period?  You’re in great risk of getting in a situation that you won’t understand at the year end and you won’t be able to explain to your superiors/auditors. I repeat, debit purchases, credit accruals GRNI.  If you use a reversing journal then you don’t need to worry about closing it out (if I’m understanding you right). — "If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man.  "But don’t be a God-damned sneak about it."                              (from "A Perfect Day for Bananafish")

Response:

Since when did inventory appear in the P&L?

It always has done. Perhaps you refer to the Cost of goods sold account? but how can that be equal to the B/S inventory?

It doesn’t. Therefore you must mean a write-up situation  where you have Opening Inventory Plus Purchases Less Closing Inventory (this appearing on both P&L and B/S?) = Cost of goods sold

Dead right.  Did they teach you different? Most accounting packages handle inventory dymanically, debiting inventory at the time of purchase and crediting it at time of sale (and simultaneously debiting cost of goods), therefore the COGS goes to the P&L and Inventory to the balance sheet.

The danger with the scenario you describe is that people make elementary bookkeeping howlers like we’ve been seeing here because they’re led to make shortcuts by their systems.  If your system fails or you have to do anything out of the ordinary then you’re in big trouble.  You really can’t beat a solid grounding in double entry.  My tuppence worth. — "If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man.  "But don’t be a God-damned sneak about it."                               (from "A Perfect Day for Bananafish")

Response:

Since when did inventory appear in the P&L? It always has done.

        I personally have never worked for a company that has done it this way. When I was in public practice, we never did it this way either. I find it completely unnecessary. Most accounting packages handle inventory dymanically, debiting inventory at the time of purchase and crediting it at time of sale (and simultaneously debiting cost of goods), therefore the COGS goes to the P&L and Inventory to the balance sheet. The danger with the scenario you describe is that people make elementary bookkeeping howlers like we’ve been seeing here because they’re led to make shortcuts by their systems.  If your system fails or you have to do anything out of the ordinary then you’re in big trouble.  You really can’t beat a solid grounding in double entry.  My tuppence worth.

        Debiting Inventory instead of Purchases is a shortcut. If someone doesn’t understand how this works, they obviously shouldn’t do it this way. "Everything should be made as simple  as possible, but not simpler."                                 – Albert Einstein      

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BZZZZZZZT! Either way is fine. If you debit Purchases, you have to close it out at the end of the year anyway. The end result is the same. Debiting Inventory is easier though. It’s not.  There are two trial balance inventory accounts – P&L inventory and BS inventory.  They should always be the same.  At the end of the year you merely journal in whatever is required to get them to equal physical stock, as follows: DR/CR  P&L inventory       X   CR/DR  BS inventory        X If you are suggesting that we journal amounts into either one of these accounts without doing the same to the other then you’re going to get into a pickle.  How will you journal in your closing stock at the end of the period?  You’re in great risk of getting in a situation that you won’t understand at the year end and you won’t be able to explain to your superiors/auditors. I repeat, debit purchases, credit accruals GRNI.  If you use a reversing journal then you don’t need to worry about closing it out (if I’m understanding you right).

Assume: Beginning Inventory = 30,000 Purchases = 200,000 Ending Inventory = 26,000 Therefore: Cost of Goods Sold = Beg. Inv. + Purchases – End. Inv. COGS = 30,000 + 200,000 – 26,000 COGS = 204,000 Your way: 1) Purchases                            200,000         Accounts Payable                        200,000 To record purchase of merchandise. 2) Cost of Goods Sold                   4,000         Inventory                               4,000 To adjust inventory to ending balance. 3) Cost of Goods Sold                   200,000         Purchases                               200,000 To close out purchases account against COGS. Therefore, COGS = 4,000 + 200,000 = 204,000 Inventory = 30,000 – 4,000 = 26,000 My way: 1) Inventory                            200,000         Accounts Payable                        200,000 To record purchase of merchandise. 2) Cost of Goods Sold                   204,000         Inventory                               204,000 To adjust inventory to ending balance. Therefore, COGS = 204,000 Inventory = 30,000 + 200,000 – 204,000 = 26,000 The results are the same. "Everything should be made as simple  as possible, but not simpler."                                 – Albert Einstein      

Response:

That would be easy ! Use the "Goods In Trasit" Account

Response:

Could somebody tell me how to correct the following error. At the end of the year physical inventory reflects goods that have been received. The invoice however was not received and not entered during the same fiscal year. What accounts do you use to make correction? Thank you for your help

Per GAAP, whoever is in possession of goods has the title to them. therefore, even if you have not received the invoice for the goods already included in your physical inventory, you need to make accrual for its costs. Normally, this is the pro-forma entries:         Purchases                               xxxx                 Accounts payable                        xxxx If you have further questions, please forward your message to me at my dennis

Response:

BZZZZZZZT! Either way is fine. If you debit Purchases, you have to close it out at the end of the year anyway. The end result is the same. Debiting Inventory is easier though.

It’s not.  There are two trial balance inventory accounts – P&L inventory and BS inventory.  They should always be the same.  At the end of the year you merely journal in whatever is required to get them to equal physical stock, as follows: DR/CR  P&L inventory       X    CR/DR  BS inventory        X If you are suggesting that we journal amounts into either one of these accounts without doing the same to the other then you’re going to get into a pickle.  How will you journal in your closing stock at the end of the period?  You’re in great risk of getting in a situation that you won’t understand at the year end and you won’t be able to explain to your superiors/auditors. I repeat, debit purchases, credit accruals GRNI.  If you use a reversing journal then you don’t need to worry about closing it out (if I’m understanding you right). — "If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man.  "But don’t be a God-damned sneak about it."                               (from "A Perfect Day for Bananafish")

Response:

Debit Inventory Credit Accrues Accounts Payable BZZZZZZT! inventory isn’t part of the double entry system.  Sorry.  You meant purchases.

BZZZZZZZT! Either way is fine. If you debit Purchases, you have to close it out at the end of the year anyway. The end result is the same. Debiting Inventory is easier though. "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."                                                 – Albert Einstein      

Response:

: Debit Inventory : Credit Accrues Accounts Payable : : : BZZZZZZT! : : inventory isn’t part of the double entry system.  Sorry.  You meant : purchases. : : — : "If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man.  "But : don’t be a God-damned sneak about it." :                               (from "A Perfect Day for Bananafish") : It depends if they are using a perpetual system or not… IF they are using perpetual system and thus DR Inventory and CR A/P on purchases and  then on sales they make the following two entries:  DR A/R CR Sales and  DR Cost of Goods Sold CR Inventory….   So in this situation if they are on a perpetual system they need to accrue for inventory and then reverse the entry in the subsequent year when they enter the actual invoice into the system.

Response:

Debit Inventory Credit Accrues Accounts Payable – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Could somebody tell me how to correct the following error. At the end of the year physical inventory reflects goods that have been received. The invoice however was not received and not entered during the same fiscal year. What accounts do you use to make correction? Thank you for your help

Response:

Debit Inventory Credit Accrues Accounts Payable

BZZZZZZT! inventory isn’t part of the double entry system.  Sorry.  You meant purchases. — "If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man.  "But don’t be a God-damned sneak about it."                               (from "A Perfect Day for Bananafish")

Response:

Could somebody tell me how to correct the following error. At the end of the year physical inventory reflects goods that have been received. The invoice however was not received and not entered during the same fiscal year. What accounts do you use to make correction? Thank you for your help

Response:

Could somebody tell me how to correct the following error. At the end of the year physical inventory reflects goods that have been received. The invoice however was not received and not entered during the same fiscal year. What accounts do you use to make correction? Thank you for your help

debit purchases credit creditors (GRNI accrual) that way you get COS right. — "If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man.  "But don’t be a God-damned sneak about it."                               (from "A Perfect Day for Bananafish")

Response:

What happened when you counted the inventory and found it differed from your books (because you didn’t have the invoice)??? If the terms of the invoice state that the goods belonged to you at 12/31, then you should accrue the invoice in A/P or accrued expenses.  Then you should debit inventory or, if the inventory has already been adjusted to the physical count (which included the goods in question), then cost of goods sold. : Could somebody tell me how to correct the following error. : : At the end of the year physical inventory reflects goods that have been : received. The invoice however was not received and not entered during the : same fiscal year. What accounts do you use to make correction? : : Thank you for your help : : :

Response: